Chelsea Manning attempts to destroy 'grand jury' system using their actions as wrecking ball!

[Razer]

grarpamp wrote:
> On 12/17/19, Razer <g2s at riseup.net> wrote:
>> https://medium.com/@kevin_33184/chelsea-mannings-resistance-brings-u-s-closer-to-ending-the-grand-jury-7b9d3ad6537a
>> 💝 Love you Chelsea! See you at the Barricades 🏴‍☠️
> 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 “no dishonor” 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 “preliminary” or
> “committal” 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 “normal” or
> “necessary,” 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 jury’s originally
> intended purposes. 1
> The 5th Amendment provides many of our most cherished procedural
> safeguards, concepts
> foundational to our criminal legal system, including ‘due process,’ 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 – and what they don’t see. The grand
> jury imagined by the
> drafters of the fifth amendment – which did not involve a prosecutor –
> 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
> don’t 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 ‘ham sandwich’
> statement and selective indictment
> happen because of grand jury secrecy.
> Also, a prosecutor’s 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 today’s 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 “infamous” 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 “the grand jury is
> essentially controlled by the United States Attorney and is his
> prosecutorial tool” 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 – 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 Amendment’s
> protections against
> unreasonable search and seizure, and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantees
> of due process. Today’s
> 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 “grand
> juries are notorious for being
> ‘rubber stamps’ for the prosecutor for virtually all routine criminal
> matters.” 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 Amendment’s 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 amendment’s
> 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 doesn’t 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 defendant’s 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 “sinned” 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
> otherwise—and 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 1–18 (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
> “preliminary” or “committal”
> 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, don’t 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 women’s
> 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:
> “Over the past four years, under the present administration, we have
> witnessed the birth of a new breed of political animal — the kangaroo grand
> jury — 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.” 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 – 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 I’ve 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 — 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 EDVA’s grand jury:
>
> “As 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.
>
> “I 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.
>
> “When 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 government’s 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.
>
> “Now, after seven and a half years of ‘paying my debt to society,’ 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 government’s ongoing war on free speech,
> journalists, and whistleblowers. I am insulted that those in power
> claim that I have an ‘obligation that every citizen owes his
> government’ 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: ‘One has an obligation
> to disobey unjust laws.’
>
> “It is difficult to view any of this government’s 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 ‘crime’
> of refusing to allow our spirits to break, after ‘serving’ our
> sentences for exposing government and corporate corruption.
>
> “This 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!!”
>
>     “Our 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.”  —
> 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
> "


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20191218/64657010/attachment-0001.sig>