• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Third anarchist jailed for refusing to testify before secret grand jury

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
http://rt.com/usa/news/refusing-grand-jury-plante-196/

{snip}
Plante was one of a handful of people targeted in a series of raids administered by the FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force on July 25 of this year which the feds say were in conjunction with an investigation into acts of vandalism that occurred during May Day protests in Seattle nearly two months prior. As part of their probe, search warrants were issued at multiple residences of activists in the area, including Plante’s, demanding that dwellers provide agents with “anti-government or anarchist literature” in their homes and any flags, flag-making material, cell phones, hard drives, address books, and black clothing.

“As if they had taken pointers from Orwell’s 1984, they took books, artwork and other various literature as ‘evidence’ as well as many other personal belongings even though they seemed to know that nobody there was even in Seattle on May Day,” Plante recalls in a post published this week to her Tumblr page.

Only one week after the raid, Neil Fox of the National Lawyers Guild told Seattle Times that raids like this are create a “chilling effect” by going after lawful, constitutionally-allowed private possessions.{/snip}


How much longer before it's the people who are like us who are being locked up? Those of us who exercise our freedom and would dare to talk discuss it on the world wide web like this?
 
Last edited:

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
http://rt.com/usa/news/refusing-grand-jury-plante-196/

{snip}
Plante was one of a handful of people targeted in a series of raids administered by the FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force on July 25 of this year which the feds say were in conjunction with an investigation into acts of vandalism that occurred during May Day protests in Seattle nearly two months prior. As part of their probe, search warrants were issued at multiple residences of activists in the area, including Plante’s, demanding that dwellers provide agents with “anti-government or anarchist literature” in their homes and any flags, flag-making material, cell phones, hard drives, address books, and black clothing.

“As if they had taken pointers from Orwell’s 1984, they took books, artwork and other various literature as ‘evidence’ as well as many other personal belongings even though they seemed to know that nobody there was even in Seattle on May Day,” Plante recalls in a post published this week to her Tumblr page.

Only one week after the raid, Neil Fox of the National Lawyers Guild told Seattle Times that raids like this are create a “chilling effect” by going after lawful, constitutionally-allowed private possessions.{/snip}


How much longer before it's the people who are like us who are being locked up? Those of us who exercise our freedom and would dare to talk discuss it on the world wide web like this?

I wouldnt answer their questions either. What they are doing is unconstitutional. Period. I guess if not answering questions and having reading material that talks about being anti government makes you an anarchist, well I guess Im guilty. Come get me coppers.
 
Last edited:

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
I wouldnt answer their questions either. What they are doing is unconstitutional. Period. I guess if not answering questions and having reading material that talks about being anti government makes you an anarchist, well I guess Im guilty. Come get me coppers.

I agree with you and the victim here. That is why I am wondering how much longer before the whole group of us is going to be locked up? There is that whole thread about a family getting storm troopered over a false domestic disturbance call simply because he was a "Constitutionalist"
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I agree with you and the victim here. That is why I am wondering how much longer before the whole group of us is going to be locked up? There is that whole thread about a family getting storm troopered over a false domestic disturbance call simply because he was a "Constitutionalist"


Not us. Guns are too hot-button of a topic, next to impossible to spin to the same degree anarchists and other protesters can. Too much public sympathy for guns. Anarchists and anti-World Bank protesters, not so much public sympathy.

Besides, the Directorate of Fatherland Insecurity already got their toes toasted once before for the constitutionalist angle. Back in (2003? 2006?) they came out with this list of indicators of being a possible domestic terrorist. Believing in the constitution was one of the indicators. Howls of rage and ridicule made the fedgoons backtrack on that one.

They may come after some of us as libertarians at some point, or some other subgroup of OCers, but not because of OC or guns.
 
Last edited:

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
http://rt.com/usa/news/refusing-grand-jury-plante-196/

{snip}
Plante was one of a handful of people targeted in a series of raids administered by the FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force on July 25 of this year which the feds say were in conjunction with an investigation into acts of vandalism that occurred during May Day protests in Seattle nearly two months prior. As part of their probe, search warrants were issued at multiple residences of activists in the area, including Plante’s, demanding that dwellers provide agents with “anti-government or anarchist literature” in their homes and any flags, flag-making material, cell phones, hard drives, address books, and black clothing.

“As if they had taken pointers from Orwell’s 1984, they took books, artwork and other various literature as ‘evidence’ as well as many other personal belongings even though they seemed to know that nobody there was even in Seattle on May Day,” Plante recalls in a post published this week to her Tumblr page.

Only one week after the raid, Neil Fox of the National Lawyers Guild told Seattle Times that raids like this are create a “chilling effect” by going after lawful, constitutionally-allowed private possessions.{/snip}


How much longer before it's the people who are like us who are being locked up? Those of us who exercise our freedom and would dare to talk discuss it on the world wide web like this?

I suspect it won't be too long. Civil unrest will follow the catastrophic economic turmoil that has to be the conclusion of our debt and dollar printing.
Once that happens the FED will have to move on non-conformist quickly to keep the sheep in step
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I suspect it won't be too long. Civil unrest will follow the catastrophic economic turmoil that has to be the conclusion of our debt and dollar printing.
Once that happens the FED will have to move on non-conformist quickly to keep the sheep in step

Wait a minute. The common usage of the Fed means the Federal Reserve. Do you mean bankers will start locking up non-conformists? Or, do you mean the federal government?
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Wait a minute. The common usage of the Fed means the Federal Reserve. Do you mean bankers will start locking up non-conformists? Or, do you mean the federal government?

Sorry. I sometimes use FED-GOV as lazy short hand for federal government. I guess my laziness bumped it further to FED.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
And what is "anti-government" literature? Our constitution? Declaration of Independence? Book of "How to Win Playing Millionaire"?

I know when I talk to my gov't officials about what I think the 2nd amendment means they classify me as a terrorist.

So, I would have given them every possession I owned and let them sort it out. Including soiled underwear.
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
Dumb question: How can a person be jailed for contempt by invoking their right against self-incrimination?

Dumb question answered: Testimony before a grand jury can be compelled under a grant of immunity from prosecution. However, I saw no indication in this story of such a grant of immunity.

From what I gathered in reading this story, the object of having her testify in front of a grand jury was to determine if an indictment could be issued against her. Am I wrong? Am I misreading the story?

Have we really come that close to what Orwell wrote about? Where even your thoughts and opinions can be used to fabricate criminal charges against you?
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Dumb question: How can a person be jailed for contempt by invoking their right against self-incrimination?

From what I gathered in reading this story, the object of having her testify in front of a grand jury was to determine if an indictment could be issued against her. Am I wrong? Am I misreading the story?

Have we really come that close to what Orwell wrote about? Where even your thoughts and opinions can be used to fabricate criminal charges against you?

I would be a little suspicious of that. The courts, although bad, aren't quite that far gone.

I don't recall what it was, but when I read the story, something made me think it was a little hyperbolic and thus not entirely accurate. Oh, I recall, it was that the police arrived with a warrant demanding she show
[list of items]. Warrants don't make demands; they authorize searches. Cops don't have to ask where something is, they can just search. They might ask where something is to establish guilty knowledge, but warrants don't authorize the asking.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Dumb question: How can a person be jailed for contempt by invoking their right against self-incrimination?

Oh, sorry. It just dawned on me.

Immunity. Apparently in some jurisdictions (many?), you can be compelled to testify against yourself if the government gives you immunity from prosecution for the things you reveal. Perjury excepted.

I just read again about this recently. Don't know how I forgot about it so quick.

The spurious government justification is that if you are immunized, then you are not exposing yourself to danger by government for testifying to incriminating stuff. Basically, the tactic is used to go after others. You testify to stuff you did or know about, thus implicating others where there is a connection.

Its a very old tactic. Part of the English version of the Inquistion. Used by the High Commission (and Court of Star Chamber?) to ferret out people who disagreed with the aspects of the Church of England--non-conformists and heretics, etc. Of course, those people didn't have immunity. But, I do think the immunity angle was tried; I just can't recall if it was before or after they finally got the right against self-incrimination.
 
Last edited:

Phoenix David

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
605
Location
Glendale, Arizona, USA
Oh, sorry. It just dawned on me.

Immunity. Apparently in some jurisdictions (many?), you can be compelled to testify against yourself if the government gives you immunity from prosecution for the things you reveal. Perjury excepted.

I just read again about this recently. Don't know how I forgot about it so quick.

The spurious government justification is that if you are immunized, then you are not exposing yourself to danger by government for testifying to incriminating stuff. Basically, the tactic is used to go after others. You testify to stuff you did or know about, thus implicating others where there is a connection.

Its a very old tactic. Part of the English version of the Inquistion. Used by the High Commission (and Court of Star Chamber?) to ferret out people who disagreed with the aspects of the Church of England--non-conformists and heretics, etc. Of course, those people didn't have immunity. But, I do think the immunity angle was tried; I just can't recall if it was before or after they finally got the right against self-incrimination.

Q: "Where were you on date X"
A: "I don't recall"

Q: "Do you know John Smyth?"
A: "I don't recall"
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Not us. Guns are too hot-button of a topic, next to impossible to spin to the same degree anarchists and other protesters can. Too much public sympathy for guns. Anarchists and anti-World Bank protesters, not so much public sympathy.

Besides, the Directorate of Fatherland Insecurity already got their toes toasted once before for the constitutionalist angle. Back in (2003? 2006?) they came out with this list of indicators of being a possible domestic terrorist. Believing in the constitution was one of the indicators. Howls of rage and ridicule made the fedgoons backtrack on that one.

They may come after some of us as libertarians at some point, or some other subgroup of OCers, but not because of OC or guns.

First they came for the protesters but I was not a protester, then they came for the anarchists, but I was not an anarchist, then they came for a constitutionalists.......

I believe it's about time for us to be more pro-active in a peaceful and lawful way possible. I believe we have crossed the bounds though because even being peaceful is unlawful now and the law criminalizes any action that some uniformed Ahole says it does.

I am getting worried for all of us. The moves are being made so that the worry seems justified.
 

mlr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2007
Messages
50
Location
, ,
And what is "anti-government" literature? Our constitution? Declaration of Independence? Book of "How to Win Playing Millionaire"?

I know when I talk to my gov't officials about what I think the 2nd amendment means they classify me as a terrorist.

So, I would have given them every possession I owned and let them sort it out. Including soiled underwear.
I would imagine that anything written by Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, the authors of Federalist papers or anyone proposing the ouster of an incumbent.

Michael
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I would imagine that anything written by Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, the authors of Federalist papers or anyone proposing the ouster of an incumbent.

Michael

You wanta watch how you use The Federalist Papers. They were partisan letters-to-the-editor in battleground states, the authors trying to sway readers to support the constitution in the ratification fight in those states. They contain some serious whoppers.

The Anti-federalists mistrusted the constitution because they saw a powerful central government that would grow and over shadow the states and the people. They wrote their own letters to the editor which have been collected into The Anti-federalist Papers. If you can find it at Barnes & Noble or Amazon I recommend it. Its surprising just how right the Anti-federalists turned out to be.

Also, none of the Federalists wanted a Bill of Rights. It was only after the Anti-federalists nearly derailed ratification of the constitution that James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights. History as taught in schools is so full of [censored] sometimes. Madison himself called the Bill of Rights an odious affair, yet today he is called the father of the Bill of Rights. Yeah, a very reluctant father who wouldn't have done it if men like Patrick Henry and George Mason hadn't been raising the devil against the constitution and its lack of a Bill of Rights. And, Madison is one of the authors of The Federalist Papers.

Another author of The Federalist Papers is one of the premier jerks of the time. Alexander Hamilton. Yeah, the guy who, as Washington's Treasury Secretary arranged a very complex plan--so complex even Washington didn't understand it--to tie investors to the new federal government with regard to paying off the revolutionary war debt. Neat trick. After his little plan, investors had a financial interest in the success of the federal government. Also, despite a complete absence of any authority to set up a central bank, Hamilton urged Washington to sign just such a bill. Over Thomas Jefferson's objections as Secretary of State. Washington went with Hamilton's advice and signed the bill. Hamilton was a monarchist, too, preferring that American society be set up with social strata like the English with nobles, lords, etc. You want to read his particular Federalist Papers with a very skeptical eye.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
You wanta watch how you use The Federalist Papers. They were partisan letters-to-the-editor in battleground states, the authors trying to sway readers to support the constitution in the ratification fight in those states. They contain some serious whoppers.

The Anti-federalists mistrusted the constitution because they saw a powerful central government that would grow and over shadow the states and the people. They wrote their own letters to the editor which have been collected into The Anti-federalist Papers. If you can find it at Barnes & Noble or Amazon I recommend it. Its surprising just how right the Anti-federalists turned out to be.

Also, none of the Federalists wanted a Bill of Rights. It was only after the Anti-federalists nearly derailed ratification of the constitution that James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights. History as taught in schools is so full of [censored] sometimes. Madison himself called the Bill of Rights an odious affair, yet today he is called the father of the Bill of Rights. Yeah, a very reluctant father who wouldn't have done it if men like Patrick Henry and George Mason hadn't been raising the devil against the constitution and its lack of a Bill of Rights. And, Madison is one of the authors of The Federalist Papers.

Another author of The Federalist Papers is one of the premier jerks of the time. Alexander Hamilton. Yeah, the guy who, as Washington's Treasury Secretary arranged a very complex plan--so complex even Washington didn't understand it--to tie investors to the new federal government with regard to paying off the revolutionary war debt. Neat trick. After his little plan, investors had a financial interest in the success of the federal government. Also, despite a complete absence of any authority to set up a central bank, Hamilton urged Washington to sign just such a bill. Over Thomas Jefferson's objections as Secretary of State. Washington went with Hamilton's advice and signed the bill. Hamilton was a monarchist, too, preferring that American society be set up with social strata like the English with nobles, lords, etc. You want to read his particular Federalist Papers with a very skeptical eye.

By reading both the federalist and the anti-federalist papers you learn much about what the fears at the time were. I have not read the anti-federalist papers yet myself. I have read the federalist papers and I understand their logic for not including a bill of rights at the start of things. I have made comments to that effect in another thread.

The basic idea being that if we did not enumerate the powers that we were granting the government in the constitution then the government would not have that power. The were worried that by using enumerated rights such as a bill of rights that the effect would be a limiting of the rights of the people.

That is what I walked away understanding.
 
Top