Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, February 27, 2013
Occupy / Crime / Politics / News Grand Jury Refusers Katherine Olejnik and Matthew Duran Are Free
Posted by Brendan Kiley on Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:15 PM
This was originally posted at 4:19 pm.
Or they will be at 4 pm tomorrow afternoon. Judge Jones has granted Duran and Olejnik's attorneys' request to release their clients, who have been in prison—without being accused of any crime—for five months and in solitary confinement for two months.
I wrote about visiting them in prison, and how they got there, in this story.
More details after I get Judge Jones's ruling—but this is happy, happy news. And it's a correction of a situation in the justice system that has seemed very, very far from just.
The third grand jury refuser, Maddie Pfeiffer, is still in prison, but Pfeiffer's attorney did not join the motion to file for release. That motion, I'm guessing, isn't too far away. And sources say Pfeiffer has been moved out of solitary confinement and into the general population.
Of course, all three might eventually be charged with criminal contempt—but at least that would have a semblance of due process, an opportunity for a trial (or some semblance of one), and a fixed term of incarceration instead of you just sit in this cell until you tell us what we want to hear.
You know, the stuff most American citizens expect when dealing with judicial branch of American government.
UPDATE
Judge Jones's ruling is here, with selected paragraphs after the jump. In short, it reiterates what we've been saying for many months: That they weren't there on May Day, that their confinement is looking awfully punitive even though it's not legally supposed to be, that they have shown their resolve to not testify, and that the feds are asking them for testimony that would be tangential at best. (Not who threw the brick through the window?, but who is this person and what are her political and social affiliations?)
Read it in Judge Jones's words below the jump:
Both Ms. Olejnik and Mr. Duran have provided extensive declarations explaining that although they wish to end their confinement, they will never end their confinement by testifying. The court finds their declarations persuasive. They have been submitted to five months of confinement. For a substantial portion of that confinement, they have been held in the special housing unit of the Federal Detention Center at SeaTac, during which they have had no other contact with detainees, very little contact even with prison staff, and exceedingly limited ability to communicate with the outside world...
The government does not dispute the witnesses' assertions that confinement in the special housing until entails 23 hours of solitary confinement in their cells and an hour of solitary time alone in a larger room each day, a single fifteen-minute phone call each month (as opposed to five hours of monthly phone time for detainees outside the special housing until), and exceedingly limited access to reading and writing material. Their physical health has deteriorated sharply and their mental health has also suffered from the effects of solitary confinement.
Their confinement has cost them; they have suffered the loss of jobs, income, and important personal relationships. They face the possibility of criminal convictions for contempt... both she and Mr. Duran have nonetheless refused to testify...
The court has observed both Ms. Olejnik and Mr. Duran in their prior appearances before the court. Whatever the merits of their choices not to testify, their demeanor has never given the court reason to doubt their sincerity or the strength of their convictions.
The witnesses and the government also invite the court to consider arguments specific to the grand jury investigation at issue. The witnesses argue, for example, that any testimony they could offer would be, at best, tangential to the investigation... Although they remain in contempt of court, the court finds no basis for their continued confinement.
140
If their refusal to give testimony is a crime, the state should charge them with it, sentence them, and move on. This should be incentive enough to compel testimony out of most people. Sure, it might not be enough of an incentive 100% of the time, but that's something it has in common with literally every other type of crime we have a law for.
What the state has no business doing is holding people indefinitely without charge, trial, or sentence. That's unacceptable for any crime, be it murder, drug trafficking, and, yes, even crimes so foul, grotesque, and unspeakable as ...refusing to say whether or not you know a guy who knows a guy who reads the same books as a guy who threw a brick at a window once.
Anything allowing the state to do so, legally and legitimately, is an unfortunate kink in our legal system that needs to be fixed. In any case, their incarceration is a waste of resources AT BEST.
For those of us who aren't that perfect mix of 2 parts idiot + 1 part asshole, this isn't exactly rocket science.
For the rest of you, I hope someday you'll pull your heads out of your asses and start requiring some actual standards for a system that's supposed to be tasked with prioritizing the prosecution of criminal activity.
What the state has no business doing is holding people indefinitely without charge, trial, or sentence. That's unacceptable for any crime, be it murder, drug trafficking, and, yes, even crimes so foul, grotesque, and unspeakable as ...refusing to say whether or not you know a guy who knows a guy who reads the same books as a guy who threw a brick at a window once.
Anything allowing the state to do so, legally and legitimately, is an unfortunate kink in our legal system that needs to be fixed. In any case, their incarceration is a waste of resources AT BEST.
For those of us who aren't that perfect mix of 2 parts idiot + 1 part asshole, this isn't exactly rocket science.
For the rest of you, I hope someday you'll pull your heads out of your asses and start requiring some actual standards for a system that's supposed to be tasked with prioritizing the prosecution of criminal activity.
138
@134
Since any review (and what happened to get them out is nothing more than a review and is NOT a trial) takes place AFTER the incarceration it doesn't affect what I typed. They were not charged in any formal sense and there was absolutely NO trial before they were incarcerated. The prosecutors were pissed that these people were not cooperating with their witch-hunt and the judge went along with them. They were not being questioned about the broken glass incident. They were being questioned about the beliefs of people that MAY have been involved in the broken glass incident along with questions about their own political beliefs.
Since any review (and what happened to get them out is nothing more than a review and is NOT a trial) takes place AFTER the incarceration it doesn't affect what I typed. They were not charged in any formal sense and there was absolutely NO trial before they were incarcerated. The prosecutors were pissed that these people were not cooperating with their witch-hunt and the judge went along with them. They were not being questioned about the broken glass incident. They were being questioned about the beliefs of people that MAY have been involved in the broken glass incident along with questions about their own political beliefs.
137
@135
Ease up, man, comparisons like that make you look bloodthirsty.
I do agree with those who say solitary confinement was excessively cruel* in this case, and is also cruel generally, even though I tend not to agree with any of the arguments they strap onto those observations.
* and probably counterproductive, given the refusers' apparent thirst for grandstanding.
Ease up, man, comparisons like that make you look bloodthirsty.
I do agree with those who say solitary confinement was excessively cruel* in this case, and is also cruel generally, even though I tend not to agree with any of the arguments they strap onto those observations.
* and probably counterproductive, given the refusers' apparent thirst for grandstanding.
135
@134 In a country w/o our tradition of the rule of law and respect for individual rights an anarchist who didn't cooperate w/ the authorities would be treated like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wnlK2nRK…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wnlK2nRK…
134
@134
And yet the Grand Jury refusers are free. How did that happen?
Surely it must have been due to something outside the Amerikkkan legal system, yes? It couldn't possibly have been brought about by lawyers and evil judges following a bunch of horrible stupid fascist rules and procedures and laws, could it?
And yet the Grand Jury refusers are free. How did that happen?
Surely it must have been due to something outside the Amerikkkan legal system, yes? It couldn't possibly have been brought about by lawyers and evil judges following a bunch of horrible stupid fascist rules and procedures and laws, could it?
133
@132 seandr: Actually no. If you watch a cops and robbers show on TV and you see a judge get mad at someone and send them to jail for contempt of court, that is what civil contempt looks like. No trial of any sort is needed or required for it. In fact they aren't even allowed. All it takes is the judge deciding all on his or her own that sending the person to jail is just what is needed at that point. THAT is civil contempt. If the person is charged and there is a hearing of ANY sort before sending them to jail for contempt then it becomes criminal contempt of court and lawyers get to be involved. These people did not get a hearing before going to jail. All they did was refuse to give testimony that is highly unlikely to have been of any use in any trial. Third hand evidence at best and they call that hearsay in court. The judge at the hearing decided that since they didn't want to give that type of evidence (tangential evidence is not useful in an actual court trial remember) that they should be held until they did give up a bunch of fucking useless info.
Gee... last time people got that fried for stuff like that the hearings were held by senator joe mccartney. You know, the guy that called everyone a communist and got them blackballed in every industry he could. He would have been proud of the judge and the federal prosecutors in this case. Hell the judges in the Salem witch trials would be proud of this case.
Gee... last time people got that fried for stuff like that the hearings were held by senator joe mccartney. You know, the guy that called everyone a communist and got them blackballed in every industry he could. He would have been proud of the judge and the federal prosecutors in this case. Hell the judges in the Salem witch trials would be proud of this case.
132
@106: But our federal system has a wrinkle that allows it to imprison people (for long periods of time) who haven't been charged with a crime.
Right. That "wrinkle" entails charging those who refuse their obligation to testify with civil contempt. If that charge is upheld in court, they are imprisoned. If not, they aren't.
That's the process by which witnesses are compelled to testify. That's what happened here.
Right. That "wrinkle" entails charging those who refuse their obligation to testify with civil contempt. If that charge is upheld in court, they are imprisoned. If not, they aren't.
That's the process by which witnesses are compelled to testify. That's what happened here.
131
@129
Yes, and given that, I must say it's difficult to imagine Maddie Pfeiffer referring to themselves with any pronoun other than "we."
Yes, and given that, I must say it's difficult to imagine Maddie Pfeiffer referring to themselves with any pronoun other than "we."
130
@ 29. I'm interested in hearing more about your husband. If you want, you can call me at 206-323-7101.
127
Hooray!!!!! Thanks again Brendan for covering this throughout!!!!!!!
Each time I read the comments, I get so upset about how many people here (in Seattle, no less) just want people to suffer. I moved here from Florida 6 years ago to get away from that kind of ignorance and insanity, and still, even here, people care more about punishment and status quo than about people or the world or, like, a chance of even having a world that doesn't suck.
I guess there's something to say for online comments not being the best representation of people, though.
Each time I read the comments, I get so upset about how many people here (in Seattle, no less) just want people to suffer. I moved here from Florida 6 years ago to get away from that kind of ignorance and insanity, and still, even here, people care more about punishment and status quo than about people or the world or, like, a chance of even having a world that doesn't suck.
I guess there's something to say for online comments not being the best representation of people, though.
126
for someone that "doesn't care about these people", you sure have spent a lot of time here, giffy.
125
Maddie Pfeiffer uses "they/them/their" pronouns, not "he/him/his." Please update!
e.g. "The third grand jury refuser, Maddie Pfeiffer, is still in prison, but their attorney did not join the motion to file for their release."
e.g. "The third grand jury refuser, Maddie Pfeiffer, is still in prison, but their attorney did not join the motion to file for their release."
124
Brendon, you really have no goddamn idea what you are talking about. Nor does it seem you care to learn.
122
@121
Ah, so you're speaking of the "actual likelihood" of mainstream liberals establishing a totalitarian dictatorship in the US.
Glad we cleared that up.
Ah, so you're speaking of the "actual likelihood" of mainstream liberals establishing a totalitarian dictatorship in the US.
Glad we cleared that up.
121
@120: My original post was regarding the likeliest source of dictatorship. There are many, many marginal groups who would fantasize of seizing such power, including some "some left-radical affinity groups" but who will remain forever marginal. Chatter all you want about their aims, I speak of actual likelihood.
Now let's argue about the impending coup led by Bob Avakian--just as relevant.
Now let's argue about the impending coup led by Bob Avakian--just as relevant.
120
It's not really a question of whether or not I feel threatened by them, is it?
The question as pertains to dictatorship is whether or not a given subculture has decided that such cadres should be considered a legitimate component of a properly functioning society.
Your own affinity group might not tolerate the ninja-suited goofballs, but there are at least some left-radical affinity groups out there that do tolerate or even celebrate this secret-cadre-based, erm, "morality encouragement."
The question as pertains to dictatorship is whether or not a given subculture has decided that such cadres should be considered a legitimate component of a properly functioning society.
Your own affinity group might not tolerate the ninja-suited goofballs, but there are at least some left-radical affinity groups out there that do tolerate or even celebrate this secret-cadre-based, erm, "morality encouragement."
119
@118: "...those uniformed, anonymous paramilitary cadres meting out punishment for perceived immoral behavior, and accountable to no-one but themselves..."
Yes, they are real too. All five of them. They are pathetic and if you actually see them as any kind of real threat to you then you are just as pathetic.
Yes, they are real too. All five of them. They are pathetic and if you actually see them as any kind of real threat to you then you are just as pathetic.
118
Oh, OK. You've actually seen a liberal! Totally different, then.
I guess those uniformed, anonymous paramilitary cadres meting out punishment for perceived immoral behavior, and accountable to no-one but themselves, are just some sort of digital video trickery, then.
Special effects and vague stereotypes, that's what they are. That's why I've never heard mention of them in a General Assembly, I reckon.
I guess those uniformed, anonymous paramilitary cadres meting out punishment for perceived immoral behavior, and accountable to no-one but themselves, are just some sort of digital video trickery, then.
Special effects and vague stereotypes, that's what they are. That's why I've never heard mention of them in a General Assembly, I reckon.
117
@115: Oh no, I actually KNOW plenty of liberals. Beyond that, there are many liberals who have actual power in this country, like, you know, the president.
115
@114
As opposed to all those non-stereotyped liberal totalitarians you've conjured up, yeah.
I agree. Whatever.
As opposed to all those non-stereotyped liberal totalitarians you've conjured up, yeah.
I agree. Whatever.
114
@113: "...some sort of vague thing from some stereotype of a very marginal group of people I don't know but read about..."
Sure, dude. Whatever.
Sure, dude. Whatever.
113
@112
In the US in the 21st century, I would not be at all surprised to see some sort of small-scale dictatorship emerge from some of the radical anti-capitalist groups running around out there.
After all, a lot of them seem to be perfectly content with a uniformed, anonymous paramilitary cadre meting out punishment for perceived immoral behavior, as they see fit, and with no accountability to anyone but themselves.
In the US in the 21st century, I would not be at all surprised to see some sort of small-scale dictatorship emerge from some of the radical anti-capitalist groups running around out there.
After all, a lot of them seem to be perfectly content with a uniformed, anonymous paramilitary cadre meting out punishment for perceived immoral behavior, as they see fit, and with no accountability to anyone but themselves.
111
@108
Dictatorship has of course come many times before under the guise of "reasonable and agreeable social order," just as it has come many times before under the guise of "correcting the wrongs of the ruling class" or "freeing all people to live as they were meant to live."
Dictatorship has of course come many times before under the guise of "reasonable and agreeable social order," just as it has come many times before under the guise of "correcting the wrongs of the ruling class" or "freeing all people to live as they were meant to live."
110
Nobody said it was new. It's very old. So old that, per my comment way above, it's been abolished by England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. etc.
But there is a difference between civil contempt and criminal contempt, and understanding that difference is key to understanding this whole months-long saga.
But there is a difference between civil contempt and criminal contempt, and understanding that difference is key to understanding this whole months-long saga.
109
106, Contempt of court is long ago settled law. Jailing people guilty of contempt of court is also settled law. It's not some new judicial device created to jail the Anarchists.
108
People like Giffy have me convinced that when dictatorship comes to America it may not be wrapped in an American flag with bible in hand after all. Instead its handmaiden will be the cold logic of law-and-order liberals.
107
105, wrong, the article goes on to explain the types of contempt that a person can be charged with after that quote.
106
@ 101. Oh, dear. You really don't understand this story at all. They were not charged with anything. But our federal system has a wrinkle that allows it to imprison people (for long periods of time) who haven't been charged with a crime. That is why people are worked up about this story.
On a different note, I'm glad to see such robust debate over how this "nation of laws" has acted in this particular case. A few observations on the conversation so far:
(a) Of course some anarchists apply for food stamps and game the system! The system, from that political perspective, is a gambling house monstrously rigged to keep the rich rich and keep the poor poor. So if you can squeeze a few bucks out of it, why not go for it? It's just a squirt of piss compared to what the Wall Street barons are stealing from the rest of us.
(b) We do live in a nation of laws and nobody with any real understanding of them (from the humblest public defender to the most conservative Supreme Court judge) would say they are perfect. We lurch back and forth, wrestling with them on a daily basis in courts across the country. Some of you seem to argue "everything that is legal is right" (let's call that the Eichmann fallacy—and it's why some of you are having a hard time rhetorically squaring your support for the judge's decision to release them with your previous blather that the grand-jury refusers should "rot" in prison "for years"). Others of you seem to argue that "law itself is tyranny" (let's call that the idealist extrapolation).
Both the Eichmann fallacy and the idealist extrapolation fail to engage with the reality we're actually in—that is, in a state of constant struggle with our laws and our courts to make them as just as possible, while realizing they will never be perfectly just. That takes hard work, on a daily basis, and not the paralyzing position of "it's all good" or "it's all bad."
And who knows? Perhaps the anarchists and the Marxists are correct. Perhaps society and capitalism will drive itself into the ground, in which case we'll *all* be thinking (and thinking fast) about what a world without laws should look like. The theorist John Zerzan says that anarchism is practice—like going to the gym—for the inevitable crash. The more we practice anarchism, the softer our landing will be.
He might be right, he might be wrong. But I'd like some of the anarchist haters (including some of our federal officials) to think about anarchism in a slightly less emotional way.
More...
On a different note, I'm glad to see such robust debate over how this "nation of laws" has acted in this particular case. A few observations on the conversation so far:
(a) Of course some anarchists apply for food stamps and game the system! The system, from that political perspective, is a gambling house monstrously rigged to keep the rich rich and keep the poor poor. So if you can squeeze a few bucks out of it, why not go for it? It's just a squirt of piss compared to what the Wall Street barons are stealing from the rest of us.
(b) We do live in a nation of laws and nobody with any real understanding of them (from the humblest public defender to the most conservative Supreme Court judge) would say they are perfect. We lurch back and forth, wrestling with them on a daily basis in courts across the country. Some of you seem to argue "everything that is legal is right" (let's call that the Eichmann fallacy—and it's why some of you are having a hard time rhetorically squaring your support for the judge's decision to release them with your previous blather that the grand-jury refusers should "rot" in prison "for years"). Others of you seem to argue that "law itself is tyranny" (let's call that the idealist extrapolation).
Both the Eichmann fallacy and the idealist extrapolation fail to engage with the reality we're actually in—that is, in a state of constant struggle with our laws and our courts to make them as just as possible, while realizing they will never be perfectly just. That takes hard work, on a daily basis, and not the paralyzing position of "it's all good" or "it's all bad."
And who knows? Perhaps the anarchists and the Marxists are correct. Perhaps society and capitalism will drive itself into the ground, in which case we'll *all* be thinking (and thinking fast) about what a world without laws should look like. The theorist John Zerzan says that anarchism is practice—like going to the gym—for the inevitable crash. The more we practice anarchism, the softer our landing will be.
He might be right, he might be wrong. But I'd like some of the anarchist haters (including some of our federal officials) to think about anarchism in a slightly less emotional way.
105
@104
Congratulations, you've just found a phrase that applies to criminal contempt proceedings in the US. Now go do the rest of your homework.
Congratulations, you've just found a phrase that applies to criminal contempt proceedings in the US. Now go do the rest of your homework.
104
Contempt of Court
Contempt of court is behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. Contempt charges may be brought against parties to proceedings; lawyers or other court officers or personnel; jurors; witnesses; or people who insert themselves in a case, such as protesters outside a courtroom.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar…
102
@101
By "these folks," we of course mean "people who refuse to testify when summoned or subpoenaed." And they are exactly why this system exists.
And no, there was no "charge of contempt," and they were not "found guilty," and you don't appear to have anything beyond mulish reiteration to back up your assertions, at this point.
By "these folks," we of course mean "people who refuse to testify when summoned or subpoenaed." And they are exactly why this system exists.
And no, there was no "charge of contempt," and they were not "found guilty," and you don't appear to have anything beyond mulish reiteration to back up your assertions, at this point.
101
99, Jailing people for contempt of court has been around longer than these folks have been alive. There was a charge of contempt for which they were found guilty.
100
@ 61. You are correct! I (hastily) transcribed from the pdf and made a few typos. Thanks for catching that. It's fixed now.
99
@98
They were not "charged with civil contempt." They were held to compel compliance with the judge's order, after refusing to comply with that order and being ruled in contempt by the judge.
There was no finding of guilt, because there was no due process, and there was no due process because due process is not deemed necessary when the prisoner can secure his or her own release at any time by complying with the judge's order.
There was no "verdict." There was not even a "charge" leveled against the refusers. There was a hearing, but it was not a hearing to determine "guilt," it was a hearing to uphold or strike down the judge's ruling of contempt.
Sending people to jail for civil contempt was created exactly for "these folks," and it does not entail any "verdict" or "guilt."
They were not "charged with civil contempt." They were held to compel compliance with the judge's order, after refusing to comply with that order and being ruled in contempt by the judge.
There was no finding of guilt, because there was no due process, and there was no due process because due process is not deemed necessary when the prisoner can secure his or her own release at any time by complying with the judge's order.
There was no "verdict." There was not even a "charge" leveled against the refusers. There was a hearing, but it was not a hearing to determine "guilt," it was a hearing to uphold or strike down the judge's ruling of contempt.
Sending people to jail for civil contempt was created exactly for "these folks," and it does not entail any "verdict" or "guilt."
98
97, they were charged with civil contempt. The court then held a hearing to determine if they were guilty of civil contempt, which they were, and their lawyer tried and failed to appeal the verdict. So the contempt guilty verdicts stood, and they were sent to jail. Sending people to jail for civil contempt wasn't created for these folks. It's a centuries old standard legal action.
97
@92
The hearing in which the judge's contempt ruling was upheld would be analogous to a bail hearing, not a trial. The refusers have not been tried for contempt, and they have not been "found guilty of contempt", civil or criminal. They have been jailed pending testimony after a ruling of contempt without any conviction and at a judge's discretion, just a a criminal suspect might be jailed pending trial after a bail hearing without any conviction and at a judge's discretion.
The hearing in which the judge's contempt ruling was upheld would be analogous to a bail hearing, not a trial. The refusers have not been tried for contempt, and they have not been "found guilty of contempt", civil or criminal. They have been jailed pending testimony after a ruling of contempt without any conviction and at a judge's discretion, just a a criminal suspect might be jailed pending trial after a bail hearing without any conviction and at a judge's discretion.
96
95, they were charged with civil contempt. The court then held a hearing to determine if they were guilty of civil contempt, which they were, and their lawyer tried and failed to appeal the verdict.
95
@ 89, you also said they were "charged." They were not. You called the finding a "verdict." It was not. You say they are "guilty." You won't find that word anywhere in the ruling. These are important legal distinctions. Unless the government brings charges and they go on trial and are convicted, they will have no criminal record as a result of their confinement.
Now, unless you care to either walk back your use of the words "charged" and "verdict" and "guilty," or demonstrate that the court DID charge them and found a verdict guilty and issued a sentence (as opposed to the hearings and findings and orders to be held, which aren't the same even though they resulted in jail time), then I'm taking my leave because if you don't do either, then there's nothing you'll say substantial enough to warrant further response.
Now, unless you care to either walk back your use of the words "charged" and "verdict" and "guilty," or demonstrate that the court DID charge them and found a verdict guilty and issued a sentence (as opposed to the hearings and findings and orders to be held, which aren't the same even though they resulted in jail time), then I'm taking my leave because if you don't do either, then there's nothing you'll say substantial enough to warrant further response.
94
@91
Threats are a form of violence. Breaking the windows of a specific class of person* is a threat.
* or organization, if you refuse to regard the human members of some organizations as people.
Threats are a form of violence. Breaking the windows of a specific class of person* is a threat.
* or organization, if you refuse to regard the human members of some organizations as people.
92
9O, after the contempt charges were made, there were contempt court hearings held, and they were found guilty.
91
@44: What happened that was so violent? Surely you aren't calling a couple of broken windows "violence," because that would just be silly.
90
@80
"found to be in contempt" and "found to be guilty of contempt" are not the same, of course. The first is analogous to filing charges in a criminal case, the latter would be analogous to a conviction.
With that said, if the government decides to take them to court on the contempt charge, they'll have a pretty strong case. This, incidentally, is how courts compel testimony in those wonderful enlightened countries without Grand Juries*-- if you don't testify, you're charged with a crime, and treated like a suspect**.
* and also without spousal privilege or even 5th-amendment style protections against self-incrimination, for the most part.
** often in streamlined procedures without recourse to the years-long due process system found in the US.
"found to be in contempt" and "found to be guilty of contempt" are not the same, of course. The first is analogous to filing charges in a criminal case, the latter would be analogous to a conviction.
With that said, if the government decides to take them to court on the contempt charge, they'll have a pretty strong case. This, incidentally, is how courts compel testimony in those wonderful enlightened countries without Grand Juries*-- if you don't testify, you're charged with a crime, and treated like a suspect**.
* and also without spousal privilege or even 5th-amendment style protections against self-incrimination, for the most part.
** often in streamlined procedures without recourse to the years-long due process system found in the US.
89
Matt, they were charged found guilty of CIVIL contempt, which legally can result in jail time. I specifically wrote civil contempt in my first post.
87
Contempt charges were made in this case, and there was a contempt hearing in which they were found guilty.
86
Spellcheck @ 85: "DUE process", not "Dure." I had to transcribe, since I don't know how to copy and paste from a PDF. (I imagine there's a way...)
85
@ 82, then you're just plain wrong. I quote:
This demonstrates the difference between the finding of contempt as part of a grand jury investigation, and a charge of criminal contempt in which a witness is charged with such and put on trial for it. It's why the court can free them, as opposed to a parole board.
When a witness unlawfully refuses to answer questions from a grand jury, a court has authority to declare her in civil contempt. [My emphasis.] In those cases, the purpose of confinement following a finding of civil contempt is to coerce the witness's testimony. The confinement must end, for example, when the term of the grand jury expires (because the witness cannot testify before a grand jury that does not exist), or when the witness chooses to testify.
Dure porcess also demands, however, that the court end confinement where it is substantially likely that the witness's confinement is no longer coercive. Confinement withouth the possibility of coercing testimony is purely punitive, and falls within the realm of criminal law. So far as the court is aware, the Government has not charged either Ms. Olejnik or Mr. Duran with criminal contempt. [my emphasis.]
This demonstrates the difference between the finding of contempt as part of a grand jury investigation, and a charge of criminal contempt in which a witness is charged with such and put on trial for it. It's why the court can free them, as opposed to a parole board.
83
no they were not charged with anything rob, you are confused. they were never charged, they never plead, and they were never convicted. Its funny that you you out CHARGES in all caps but forgot the word right after it, which is "may"
"Contempt charges MAY be"
"Contempt charges MAY be"
80
They were charged with civil contempt. There was a contempt hearing in which they were found to be in contempt. (Found to be guilty of contempt) Their lawyers appealed the contempt verdict, but lost.
79
Contempt of Court
Contempt of court is behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. Contempt charges may be brought against parties to proceedings; lawyers or other court officers or personnel; jurors; witnesses;
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar…
Contempt of court is behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. Contempt charges may be brought against parties to proceedings; lawyers or other court officers or personnel; jurors; witnesses;
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar…
78
Oh, it's also important to note that both are still under contempt of court. They're free to leave detainment, but they are not cleared of contempt of court. They'll probably still have to appear to testify if called, and I believe that means they could end up back in the clink if they refuse. If there's a lawyer reading this, I'd appreciate clarification.
@ 75, they were found to be in contempt of court. They were not charged with criminal contempt. It says that right in the ruling. My guess is that there's a possibility that the feds could press that charge if they choose, but it's false to state that they were "charged and found guilty" of that already.
@ 75, they were found to be in contempt of court. They were not charged with criminal contempt. It says that right in the ruling. My guess is that there's a possibility that the feds could press that charge if they choose, but it's false to state that they were "charged and found guilty" of that already.
77
The actual ruling is brief and quite readable. Has anyone read it?
It's interesting that the feds had apparently given up making a case for keeping them detained. The ruling states that they don't challenge any of the witnesses' assertions about their confinement or that the longer they stay, the firmer their resolve not to testify. Nor do they challenge the witnesses' statement that what they know is tangential to the investigation. That certainly makes it look like this was more of a federal power play than true law enforcement.
It's also interesting to know that someone can be detained for up to 18 months in order to coerce testimony. Good to know that the courts have the leeway to say "enough is enough." I can imagine some cases where that would be desirable (breaking a major drug cartel, for example). But even though I have nothing but contempt for the morons who think breaking a window is a political act, I'd rather they not waste millions on an insignificant group who will never do anything more serious, or make a greater impact, then that. Maybe these agents and attorneys will feel the effect of the sequester. (Extremely wishful thinking, of course.)
It's interesting that the feds had apparently given up making a case for keeping them detained. The ruling states that they don't challenge any of the witnesses' assertions about their confinement or that the longer they stay, the firmer their resolve not to testify. Nor do they challenge the witnesses' statement that what they know is tangential to the investigation. That certainly makes it look like this was more of a federal power play than true law enforcement.
It's also interesting to know that someone can be detained for up to 18 months in order to coerce testimony. Good to know that the courts have the leeway to say "enough is enough." I can imagine some cases where that would be desirable (breaking a major drug cartel, for example). But even though I have nothing but contempt for the morons who think breaking a window is a political act, I'd rather they not waste millions on an insignificant group who will never do anything more serious, or make a greater impact, then that. Maybe these agents and attorneys will feel the effect of the sequester. (Extremely wishful thinking, of course.)
76
@67 There is no, "but I like these people", exception to the requirement to give testimony. Do you really not get that as associates they may have info on where these assholes were, what they had talked about doing, etc.?
I find it fascinating how you all seem to hate Grand Juries, which accord the accused a hell of a lot more protection (the people have to agree to bring charges, not just a prosecutor and judge), than the alternatives. But they only work if you can make people who don't want to give testimony, give testimony. The system we have in Washington and those more 'civilized' countries is certainly more efficient, but without a doubt s reduction in rights for those accused of crimes.
@70 I giggled too. After I recovered from the unconscionable attack on my pants of course.
I find it fascinating how you all seem to hate Grand Juries, which accord the accused a hell of a lot more protection (the people have to agree to bring charges, not just a prosecutor and judge), than the alternatives. But they only work if you can make people who don't want to give testimony, give testimony. The system we have in Washington and those more 'civilized' countries is certainly more efficient, but without a doubt s reduction in rights for those accused of crimes.
@70 I giggled too. After I recovered from the unconscionable attack on my pants of course.
75
It is false to say they were held without charges. They were charged and found guilty of civil contempt of court. Civil contempt of court doesn't result in a criminal record, but criminal contempt of court will. Their release may or may not be prelude to criminal contempt charges being filed.
74
@ 69, it's weird to see an anarchist (as your handle indicates you are) celebrating a LEGAL victory.
73
Once the feds are finished investigating broken windows and mapping the social graphs of political dissidents, we can expect to soon see the first significant prosecution of one of the people who committed massive fraud and sank our economy, right?
70
Ahhh! Giffy, he just called you a "khaki wearing" (?) liberal. Responde, si vous plait!
"IN SILENCE WE ROAR" (sorry, that just made me giggle).
"IN SILENCE WE ROAR" (sorry, that just made me giggle).
69
HAHAHA!!! Suck it, giffy and all you fucking khaki wearing liberals! We win this round, you fucking lose. IN SILENCE WE ROAR
67
@38 They can do that without a grand jury and lack of due process and you know it.
@66 Ok. So their friends get to go to jail? Look I don't like black bloc dummies any more than you, but I'll protect the right of their *acquaintances* to not be locked up indefinitely by a Star Chamber convened to run around wasting the tax payers' dime** trying to intimidate those with a particular political mindset, which, incidentally you don't like thus strangely seem more inclined to want incarceration of folks without charges, without proof of having committed any crime.
**I'd really like the Stranger to quantify the monetary amount of damage caused verses the whole kittenkaboodle of this circus you're calling justice.
@66 Ok. So their friends get to go to jail? Look I don't like black bloc dummies any more than you, but I'll protect the right of their *acquaintances* to not be locked up indefinitely by a Star Chamber convened to run around wasting the tax payers' dime** trying to intimidate those with a particular political mindset, which, incidentally you don't like thus strangely seem more inclined to want incarceration of folks without charges, without proof of having committed any crime.
**I'd really like the Stranger to quantify the monetary amount of damage caused verses the whole kittenkaboodle of this circus you're calling justice.
66
And I happen to like downtown and get a bit annoyed when self important jackasses throw a fit and make a mess of it.
That and it happens to hurt the cause of those working for social justice through better means.
That and it happens to hurt the cause of those working for social justice through better means.
64
Either way, you're right... Both of our opinions don't matter. But, can I ask you one thing? Can you find fun in some other shit other than trolling on this comment with biased republican like views... Seriously, there are better things to joke with... Unless you absolutely enjoy antagonizing people.
62
Well, I agree with not breaking people's stuff who live differently.... However, wells fargo, Niketown, the federal courthouse, most definitely are "people's stuff" seeing as most of these banks replaces their "thousands of dollars" windows within hours.... Now, mayday folk didn't go an trash people's homes... If you think that banks and corporate owned stores are bad to break windows and is detrimental to people, than, good on you... Only, I'm just gonna stand firm in my point that you're an idiot. Otherwise, if you consider these facts and where the violence went to, maybe you wouldn't be so downright unsupportive and not as understanding.
61
The document you linked says "The government does NOT dispute the witnesses' assertions that confinement in the special housing until entails 23 hours of solitary confinement in their cells..."
60
@59 I'd say my opinion matters about as much as yours. And given that this is just some bullshit comment thread, that is not a lot. Do you really think any of us here actually thinks this matters? We're just having fun.
Of course they can do what they want and take the well deserved consequences. Just like I can do what I want too and not take them seriously.
By all means live like you want, but maybe stop breaking the stuff of people who live differently?
Of course they can do what they want and take the well deserved consequences. Just like I can do what I want too and not take them seriously.
By all means live like you want, but maybe stop breaking the stuff of people who live differently?
59
Giffy, no one gives a fuck. We don't want to cooperate with the state which why these folks are keeping quiet. You can go on and on about your logic and how well your logic makes sense, but, it doesn't fucking matter. Your opinion doesn't matter. Last I checked, you're not feeding the trio, you're not having sex with the trio, nor are you financing the trio which means you just need to shut up already and quit trying to make yourself sound smart and logical when you're not even putting one ounce effort into understanding why most of us are against the judicial system and how it works and how these folks rights are being impeded on. Sure, we aren't rioting in the streets... Nowadays, lots of us have work, pay bills, have hobbies, and life to deal with.. Because you believe in a certain way, Giffy, doesn't mean it's the right way. What you would do in their situation doesn't mean it's the right way. You should really take your head out of your asshole and see that folks are individuals and can do whatever they want and accept whatever consequences or repercussions that come with it. Again, your opinion won't change that and it would belittle it, either.
58
@46 Thanks for making my case for me. They knew people involved in criminal actions and refused to give information on them. That is wrong. And fuck the people who don't think breaking other peoples things and scaring the shit out of them is not violent and wrong.
@57 We do. But they lie and a lie is an answer. Or we don't want to give them immunity so they can claim fifth amendment protection.
@47'You really should not be writing on the law as your application of it is biased and circumstantial. Not to mention pretty uninformed. Which I guess is why you don't actually get too deep in the arguments.
@57 We do. But they lie and a lie is an answer. Or we don't want to give them immunity so they can claim fifth amendment protection.
@47'You really should not be writing on the law as your application of it is biased and circumstantial. Not to mention pretty uninformed. Which I guess is why you don't actually get too deep in the arguments.
57
Yay! These guys did nothing wrong. Not participating in an investigation should not be criminal. I can't believe there is anybody who actually believes that refusing to answer questions about other people is criminal.
If that's the case, we should not be conducting investigations with the CEO's, but with the Vice Presidents. We should be having grand juries asking the CEOs about their partners' participating in criminal activities and locking them up until they give us any answers.
Seriously, I didn't realize we were doing this thing wrong in investigating corporate crime. Lets do it right! Lets jail those motherfuckers for nothing!
If that's the case, we should not be conducting investigations with the CEO's, but with the Vice Presidents. We should be having grand juries asking the CEOs about their partners' participating in criminal activities and locking them up until they give us any answers.
Seriously, I didn't realize we were doing this thing wrong in investigating corporate crime. Lets do it right! Lets jail those motherfuckers for nothing!
56
More "martyrs" for the Stranger's faux holocausts. If it turns out they're gay, they'll be sainted.
55
Good to hear that they're out, but no one is free until we're all free! Fuck the state and fuck you boot licking authority worshiping fascist!
54
Nice of Giffy to point out that he'd like to return to European traditions from the time of the Inquisition. Shall we put them on the rack, burn them at the stake? What other medieval traditions that this country broke away from in the late 1700's would you like to return to?
This was straight out of the commie witch hunts. The court didn't want evidence about a window being broken, they wanted to punish people associated with a political view.
This was straight out of the commie witch hunts. The court didn't want evidence about a window being broken, they wanted to punish people associated with a political view.
53
@44
The difference that you claim doesn't matter. The state says it needs to uphold its responsibility to protect the community. You have knowledge that may help, and they are the best ones to determine whether your information is useful or not, so you'd better sing if you don't support "those" dangerous people and want to stay free.
The difference that you claim doesn't matter. The state says it needs to uphold its responsibility to protect the community. You have knowledge that may help, and they are the best ones to determine whether your information is useful or not, so you'd better sing if you don't support "those" dangerous people and want to stay free.
52
@50 Thank you for sharing the powers of your imagination with all of us tonight. Well played, sir.
51
@46 You don't have to approve of the way this matter was handled to believe that the government acted within the law. Personally, I think keeping these three nitwits locked up for five months at tax payer expense just because one of them might know something about who broke a few windows is overkill. I still think the courts should have the authority to compel witnesses to give testimony.
50
@47 I'd imagine the courts in those countries still have the power to compel witnesses to give testimony in legal proceedings and that refusing to do so would result in similar consequences.
47
I'm not going to get too deep into the arguments here, since I've made all of mine several times over in print.
But it's worth noting that this peculiarity of our legal system (the grand jury's ability to hold people for long periods of time without charging them for a crime or recognizing their normal rights) has been abandoned in Australia, Canada, England, Scotland, Ireland, New Zealand, and other countries with similar legal systems.
Just because this legal apparatus exists doesn't make it inevitable, necessary, and good.
But it's worth noting that this peculiarity of our legal system (the grand jury's ability to hold people for long periods of time without charging them for a crime or recognizing their normal rights) has been abandoned in Australia, Canada, England, Scotland, Ireland, New Zealand, and other countries with similar legal systems.
Just because this legal apparatus exists doesn't make it inevitable, necessary, and good.
46
giffy, you're missing the point. There is no "cause" that they are upholding, besides the cause of justice.
As you'll notice in the post, they had no direct involvement w/ any crime. Their only "crime" was they were friends/acquaintances w/ suspects, and the government's case against _those_ people were thin at best.
For intellectual honesty's sake, you should distance your feelings about 20something anarchists and the cause of justice. While you say you support the ruling, a lot of your arguments seem like they support the government's actions in this.
As you'll notice in the post, they had no direct involvement w/ any crime. Their only "crime" was they were friends/acquaintances w/ suspects, and the government's case against _those_ people were thin at best.
For intellectual honesty's sake, you should distance your feelings about 20something anarchists and the cause of justice. While you say you support the ruling, a lot of your arguments seem like they support the government's actions in this.
45
Most countries - civilized ones, anyway - don't, in fact, have a grand jury-like mechanism that allows the state to put people in long term imprisonment without:
- Conviction
- Trial
- Charge
- Accusation
- Probable cause
- Or even the most basic suspicion
The US is unique in the first world in having such a barbaric star chamber system.
- Conviction
- Trial
- Charge
- Accusation
- Probable cause
- Or even the most basic suspicion
The US is unique in the first world in having such a barbaric star chamber system.
44
@42 Not at all what happened here. If a group I was in committed violent acts and I was called to answer questions about them I would. Without question.
43
@40 Then they should have said that instead of refusing to answer. They were granted immunity so nothing they said could be used against them.
42
@giffy
We think there's evidence that you next door neighbor might be plotting to commit horrible crimes, as there have been lots of suspicious characters in the neighborhood recently, some of whom fit the descriptions of a couple of child molesters, terrorists, and homosexuals. What are the names and jobs of all the persons who have come into your home in the last three months, what did they talk to you about, where else did you meet them, and what were they doing and what did you talk about then? Did they meet any other people, such as your family members at any time?
There are other questions for you, but we will start with those. We will lock you up until you cooperate. That's fair, right?
We think there's evidence that you next door neighbor might be plotting to commit horrible crimes, as there have been lots of suspicious characters in the neighborhood recently, some of whom fit the descriptions of a couple of child molesters, terrorists, and homosexuals. What are the names and jobs of all the persons who have come into your home in the last three months, what did they talk to you about, where else did you meet them, and what were they doing and what did you talk about then? Did they meet any other people, such as your family members at any time?
There are other questions for you, but we will start with those. We will lock you up until you cooperate. That's fair, right?
41
@37 Might want to learn a bit about the laws of this country before you claim the rest of us don't care about them:
"The power of government to compel persons to testify in court or before grand juries and other governmental agencies is firmly established in Anglo-American jurisprudence. 2 The power with respect to courts was established by statute in England as early as 1562, 3 and Lord Bacon observed in 1612 that all subjects owed the King their "knowledge and discovery." 4 While it is not clear when grand juries first resorted to compulsory process to secure the attendance and testimony of witnesses, the general common-law principle that "the public has a right to every man's evidence" was considered an "indubitable certainty" that "cannot be denied" by 1742. 5 The power to compel testimony, and the corresponding duty to testify, are recognized in the Sixth Amendment [406 U.S. 441, 444] requirements that an accused be confronted with the witnesses against him, and have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. The first Congress recognized the testimonial duty in the Judiciary Act of 1789, which provided for compulsory attendance of witnesses in the federal courts. 6 MR. JUSTICE WHITE noted the importance of this essential power of government in his concurring opinion in Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52, 93 -94 (1964)
Among the necessary and most important of the powers of the States as well as the Federal Government to assure the effective functioning of government in an ordered society is the broad power to compel residents to testify in court or before grand juries or agencies. See Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273 . Such testimony constitutes one of the Government's primary sources of information."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/ge…
More...
"The power of government to compel persons to testify in court or before grand juries and other governmental agencies is firmly established in Anglo-American jurisprudence. 2 The power with respect to courts was established by statute in England as early as 1562, 3 and Lord Bacon observed in 1612 that all subjects owed the King their "knowledge and discovery." 4 While it is not clear when grand juries first resorted to compulsory process to secure the attendance and testimony of witnesses, the general common-law principle that "the public has a right to every man's evidence" was considered an "indubitable certainty" that "cannot be denied" by 1742. 5 The power to compel testimony, and the corresponding duty to testify, are recognized in the Sixth Amendment [406 U.S. 441, 444] requirements that an accused be confronted with the witnesses against him, and have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. The first Congress recognized the testimonial duty in the Judiciary Act of 1789, which provided for compulsory attendance of witnesses in the federal courts. 6 MR. JUSTICE WHITE noted the importance of this essential power of government in his concurring opinion in Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52, 93 -94 (1964)
Among the necessary and most important of the powers of the States as well as the Federal Government to assure the effective functioning of government in an ordered society is the broad power to compel residents to testify in court or before grand juries or agencies. See Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273 . Such testimony constitutes one of the Government's primary sources of information."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/ge…
40
@34 - you nailed it!
It always amazes me how people (7, 12 & 17, in this case) make assertions about events of which they have no personal knowledge: that Duran and Olejnik knew the answers to the questions the Grand Jury Prosecutor was asking. Ironically, the only way 7/12/17 could have such information is if they were material witnesses themselves, which would make them subject to subpoena by this Grand Jury they seem intent on praising.
Even the fricken' Rockford Files offered up an incredibly informative episode on this topic of Grand Jury coercion and lack of any oversight for such abuses! In 1976!
http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi2820276…
It always amazes me how people (7, 12 & 17, in this case) make assertions about events of which they have no personal knowledge: that Duran and Olejnik knew the answers to the questions the Grand Jury Prosecutor was asking. Ironically, the only way 7/12/17 could have such information is if they were material witnesses themselves, which would make them subject to subpoena by this Grand Jury they seem intent on praising.
Even the fricken' Rockford Files offered up an incredibly informative episode on this topic of Grand Jury coercion and lack of any oversight for such abuses! In 1976!
http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi2820276…
39
Thank you, Brendan Kiley. Why are there SOOOOOOO few news people like you? And thank you, Stranger, for giving him the job.
38
By the way dirac, how do you suppose the police could do 'real police work' if they can't ask people questions?
37
"Man is born free yet we see him everywhere in chains"
--Jean Jacques Rousseau
"...the man who creates personal interest, is the man who gets ahead. Be liked and you will never want'
---Willy Loman in Death of a Salesman
law and government are illusions. Supposedly, a man is innocent until proven guilty. And yet here we see punitive measures taken against three who are not even charged with a crime, much less convicted. What is the response to this abrogation of our laws? They range from ho-hum to #12's belief that they deserved it anyway.
The rest of you are quite sane, but I'll note that there was no rioting in the streets demanding this trio's release. As well there should have been, if anyone cared at all about the laws of this country. But we don't, because the loss of our civil rights has become so commonplace that we hardly even notice it anymore.
Now, if you run in the Right circles, you can get all the media coverage of your civil rights being endangered. You can shout at Congress for restricting your gun ownership. You can, as the state of Alaska did yesterday, pass a bill nullifying any attempt to enforce federal gun legislation within the state. They've even suggested arresting cops that do try to enforce federal law. Do you think anyone would arrest a cop in WA for attempting to enforce marijuana prohibition? I don't see our legislature even contemplating such a thing, and yet that is what the legislature in AK did just yesterday. In MS, they have decided to subvert federal laws protecting a woman's right to choose. You see, its okay to suppress the civil rights sponsored by the Left, but you'll catch hell if you try to enforce the laws that the Right objects to.
And as such, our laws are a farce. A law that is not equally applied universally and blindly is meaningless. This trio's right to due process was violated for months and we did nothing at all. That should shame every one of us.
More...
--Jean Jacques Rousseau
"...the man who creates personal interest, is the man who gets ahead. Be liked and you will never want'
---Willy Loman in Death of a Salesman
law and government are illusions. Supposedly, a man is innocent until proven guilty. And yet here we see punitive measures taken against three who are not even charged with a crime, much less convicted. What is the response to this abrogation of our laws? They range from ho-hum to #12's belief that they deserved it anyway.
The rest of you are quite sane, but I'll note that there was no rioting in the streets demanding this trio's release. As well there should have been, if anyone cared at all about the laws of this country. But we don't, because the loss of our civil rights has become so commonplace that we hardly even notice it anymore.
Now, if you run in the Right circles, you can get all the media coverage of your civil rights being endangered. You can shout at Congress for restricting your gun ownership. You can, as the state of Alaska did yesterday, pass a bill nullifying any attempt to enforce federal gun legislation within the state. They've even suggested arresting cops that do try to enforce federal law. Do you think anyone would arrest a cop in WA for attempting to enforce marijuana prohibition? I don't see our legislature even contemplating such a thing, and yet that is what the legislature in AK did just yesterday. In MS, they have decided to subvert federal laws protecting a woman's right to choose. You see, its okay to suppress the civil rights sponsored by the Left, but you'll catch hell if you try to enforce the laws that the Right objects to.
And as such, our laws are a farce. A law that is not equally applied universally and blindly is meaningless. This trio's right to due process was violated for months and we did nothing at all. That should shame every one of us.
36
@34
I sort of doubt these particular Grand Jury refusers would be pleased with your characterization of them as "citizens."
I sort of doubt these particular Grand Jury refusers would be pleased with your characterization of them as "citizens."
34
@30 Lol. Nice red herring analogues but they are flimsy. A frat bro *may have* material evidence of a rape. These people, not present at the scene of the crime, were questioned based on political beliefs not at all relevant to the crime.
The grand jury is not the prototype for a Star Chamber, gif. And it shouldn't be used as such. The legitimate need to determine innocence went right out the door when the Feds used your very dear justice system for a witch hunt based on *supposed* political beliefs of the non-defendants.
They obviously can't use real police work to prove their case, so they were hoping that intimidation of citizens would work.
The grand jury is not the prototype for a Star Chamber, gif. And it shouldn't be used as such. The legitimate need to determine innocence went right out the door when the Feds used your very dear justice system for a witch hunt based on *supposed* political beliefs of the non-defendants.
They obviously can't use real police work to prove their case, so they were hoping that intimidation of citizens would work.
33
@32 No idea. I know they get questioned with some frequency. But most people don't refuse to testify, they just lie, and proving they are lying is usually as hard as proving the underlying crime.
32
@30 And just how many frat-bro's have ever been confined at the federal detention center in Sea-Tac for withholding vital evidence in a fraternity rape case?
We'll wait while you google it.
Just kidding! We're not waiting for you. There's no point.
We'll wait while you google it.
Just kidding! We're not waiting for you. There's no point.
31
I'm glad they were confined, and I'm glad they've been released. To read in the judge's ruling that it had been shown the confinement was no longer coercive, and therefore pointless to continue, is very good news.
30
@28 This has nothing to do with what anarchists believe, nor how right or wrong they are.
It is simply about the legitimate need for the justice system to get the information it needs to determine guilt or innocence. I doubt people would be so quick to make this a rights issue if it was a frat brother with information on a date rape or a banker with information on financial fraud. Either it's something the state can do or its not, and you can't pick and choose based on how sympathetic you happen to find the witness or your own opinion on how serious you think the crime is.
It is simply about the legitimate need for the justice system to get the information it needs to determine guilt or innocence. I doubt people would be so quick to make this a rights issue if it was a frat brother with information on a date rape or a banker with information on financial fraud. Either it's something the state can do or its not, and you can't pick and choose based on how sympathetic you happen to find the witness or your own opinion on how serious you think the crime is.
29
My husband has been in Immigration Detention for 8 months after living in the US for 32 years, but he has no rights to due process or an attorney. But oh well...he is part of the invisible prisoners that no one cares about. If you're not White you're not Right.
On another note, I am glad for these individuals....
On another note, I am glad for these individuals....
28
Giffy doesn't dissappoint in perpetually being full of shit. Because nothing proves "anarchists" wrong like blind faith in the good judgement of the state.
27
I am so glad that our strapped judicial system just spent greater than 3 million dollars to get to the bottom of the broken bank window. I wished they would spend ten bucks trying to get the crackhead who broke my car window.
26
@18 and @23 The right to remain silent only applies to self incrimination. There is no general right to not give testimony only a limited right to not give testimony against yourself. Hence why these two were granted immunity. Might want to try rereading it again yourself.
Your nonsense about a police state is silly at best.Anarchist delusions of self importance notwithstanding, no one gives a shit about their beliefs. These two had information on people who committed legitimate crimes. They have an obligation to share that information. That's it.
But for their violence no one would pay them any regard. Which, of course, is why they do it so instead of being completely irrelevant, they can act like the big bad state is oppressing them for their beliefs.
Your nonsense about a police state is silly at best.Anarchist delusions of self importance notwithstanding, no one gives a shit about their beliefs. These two had information on people who committed legitimate crimes. They have an obligation to share that information. That's it.
But for their violence no one would pay them any regard. Which, of course, is why they do it so instead of being completely irrelevant, they can act like the big bad state is oppressing them for their beliefs.
25
@23 I'm pretty sure the only thing the constitution says on the subject is that you can't be compelled to testify against yourself. These people were being compelled to testify against others. No fascist police state here, just a nation of laws.
24
look, all i know is that 5 of us did the first road blockade for the first mayday ever in olympia. right in front of the police. what are they gonna do, shoot me? its time for the cops to do some pee-pee in the cup is what i am saying. i think they are all juicing and (still) jerking off to the 1971 lewis powell memo. thats how they are pulling it all off so to speak.
23
@7/@12 you should re-read the constitution. The gov't is not supposed to be allowed to "compel" testimony that is either protected by the first amendment (beliefs/speech) NOR self incrimination. You are thinking of a fascist country, not a democratic republic. Call me naive for believing otherwise, but I was still hoping we avoid the plutocratic fascist police state you so lazily admire.
No. I am not an anarchist. But people like you are blind, creepy consumers of the corporate police state. You could at least get your facts and law straight. But that would require not being blind and hungry at the trough of your privileges over other people's rights.
No. I am not an anarchist. But people like you are blind, creepy consumers of the corporate police state. You could at least get your facts and law straight. But that would require not being blind and hungry at the trough of your privileges over other people's rights.
21
@7/@12 you should re-read the constitution. The gov't is not supposed to be allowed to "compel" testimony that is either protected by the first amendment (beliefs/speech) NOR self incrimination. You are thinking of a fascist country, not a democratic republic. Call my naive for believing otherwise, but I was still hoping we avoid the plutocratic fascist police state you so lazily admire.
19
My husband took the day off to go to the hearing, but I guess we'll spend it CELEBRATING!!!! Congrats to all the support people, but THE MOST RESPECT TO CATE-O & MATT.
Maddy up next!
Maddy up next!
17
@7, 12: I agree with you, and I'm always perplexed at how anarchists "choose not to participate" and yet benefit as much as everyone else from "the system", e.g. social security, food stamps, unemployment, minimum wage, etc etc ad infinitum.
16
If I'm ever ordered to testify about other people's political beliefs under threat of imprisonment, I hope I have the strength that these people are displaying. Torturing people with solitary confinement in an effort to coerce them into testifying is barbaric.
Thanks for reporting on this, Brendan.
Thanks for reporting on this, Brendan.
15
This is awesome, thanks for the continued coverage. As an anarchist, I do not trust the states judges but I have to admit, this judge really made the prosecution look like a bunch of tools.
Good job support team and everyone!!! Awesome!
Good job support team and everyone!!! Awesome!
12
@10 Or maybe people should just answer lawfully asked questions. I don't think catching the people who trashed my town is irrelevant. Especially when it was politically motivated, as such douchebaggery cheapens the work of people actually trying to make things better the right way.
I could careless who they are. The ability to compel testimony is central to a functioning judicial system be it to go after asshole anarchist rioters or asshole rapists.
That is nice that they think they are exempt from this responsibility, but they are not.
I could careless who they are. The ability to compel testimony is central to a functioning judicial system be it to go after asshole anarchist rioters or asshole rapists.
That is nice that they think they are exempt from this responsibility, but they are not.
11
GREAT!!!
However, the problem of a system that can lock citizens up without trail or due process of law remains.
However, the problem of a system that can lock citizens up without trail or due process of law remains.
10
@7 - Maybe solitary confinement should never be used to compel irrelevant testimony, regardless of whether they're damn long-haired hippie kids who don't know things worked in your day?
Shake your fist harder! Those damn kids are out of prison and are gonna walk all over your lawn!
Shake your fist harder! Those damn kids are out of prison and are gonna walk all over your lawn!
7
I have zero sympathy for these two nor for their idiotic cause, but this is the right decision. The aim is to compel testimony and it is clear that these two do not take their civic responsibilities seriously. Now hopefully we can never hear about them again.
6
Time to raise a fucking glass. Those brave souls, I hope they sue the state for compensation for the part of their lives that they'll never get back. And I hope we all have a chance to see them on the outside.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Dutch Artist Turns Dead Cat into Remote-Controlled Helicopter by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Slog Overnight by Dan Savage
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Revelation 1:9 by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (140) RSS