Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: And Then There Were Three: Third Grand Jury Refuser Goes to Prison [View all]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)172. Let us know when you are ready for a serious discussion.
A serious discussion about the destruction of civil rights in this country. Something you appear to support. That's fine, but we would like to hear more than 'it's the law' in support of your support for laws that clearly violate the rights of American citizens. A discussion means explaining WHY you are supporting this abuse of the Grand Jury system rather than just 'it's the law'. We have had many laws that violated the rights of American citizens and fortunately not everyone defended them. They FOUGHT them as this woman is doing and we call them heroes now.
So why do you support this draconian, obvious, anti-Constitutional rights law that has put an innocent person, three innocent people, in jail? Make your argument or do not accuse us, who have already stated why we oppose it, of 'not being serious'.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
382 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
And Then There Were Three: Third Grand Jury Refuser Goes to Prison [View all]
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
OP
She's protecting a criminal by not testifying against them. That's why she is in contempt. nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#31
True. There is the presumption of innocence for anyone who might be accused of the vandalism.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#36
'fishing expedition' = seeking information, not about any specific crime, but seeking information in
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#245
If people are delibertly engaging in vandalism under the pretext of "political action"...
reACTIONary
Oct 2012
#254
first, the grand jury was convened 3 months *before* may day, so it was not convened to
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#299
The woman who just went to jail was not even present at the May Day protests.
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#302
Anyone who feels smashing windows & smashing SUVs people worked hard to pay for is the way to go...
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#329
They are not vandals. Please post some proof of that claim. As for people respecting them
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#356
None of these three people were even at the May Day protests so they were not involved
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#350
She's protecting her own integrity from broad erosion of civil liberties in the name of "terrorism."
antigone382
Oct 2012
#67
There is no allegation or charge of terrorism in this case. Vandalism is vandalism.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#69
Whatever the ultimate charges, she was targeted because of broad anti-terrorism laws.
antigone382
Oct 2012
#78
Could be search warrants were illegal & that would be a way to throw out the supoenas & convictions.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#82
I would attack it on the grounds that searches for "anti-government literature" is much too vague
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#86
My hope is that such laws will eventually be overturned or found unconstitutional.
antigone382
Oct 2012
#88
Grand juries have broad scope to make inquiries and yes, they do look into crimes that occur after
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#111
The word "criminal" is already addressed. Read my other posts. Fifth Amendment does not apply here.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#132
You mean the law that abuses the Grand Jury's purpose and that violates the rights of individuals.
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#157
Because of a law that was passed manipulating the system to remove those rights.
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#158
these "protesters" were vandalizing cars and busting storefront windows. they
crazyjoe
Oct 2012
#306
I think you need to catch up. The woman who is the subject of this OP was not even
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#310
You need to understand recent laws that have been passed to limit the rights of dissenters...
antigone382
Oct 2012
#74
I applaud her also, she and the other two are heroes. This is what it takes to draw attention to the
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#160
no. kastigar v. US, 1972. People were summoned before a grand jury & gov't/prosecutor thought
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#332
Why punish someone for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury more than the actual perp?
Vincardog
Oct 2012
#2
Contempt conviction NOT equivalent to torture. Same as refusing to testify against an arsonist. nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#32
Nothing about contempt conviction that requires solitary confinement, no communication, & no appeal.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#122
Any removal of a person's freedom who has committed no crime, IS equivalent to torture.
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#161
This is an abuse of the Grand Jury system and has long been recognized as such.
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#208
The woman who just went to jail was not even present at the May Day protests.
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#303
They have broken the law. That's a crime. If you don't like the law change it.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#195
I like Grand Juries just fine. I like what the Founding Fathers intended them to be used for.
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#206
You can stop calling me racist and sexist. That's disruptive, rude, and over-the-top. Not very DU.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#207
quoted YOUR WORDS "you would have said the same thing about the laws that forbade African Americans"
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#234
Thanks for the background. In this thread I've been called Gestapo, racist, brown, white, etc.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#266
Post some proof of this false allegation or retract it. I will be back to see your links
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#290
Still waiting? Of course you are. This little group frequently does this, it's SOP for them.
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#374
Oh, so you think that labelling like that is consistent with DU Community Standards? Think again.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#277
I've dealt with it already. Shown you your words. Over an hour ago.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#293
No you have not. You posted my words, then you posted YOUR false interpretation
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#294
And you have links to prove this or you would not be backing this false allegation I am
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#291
link to where she did this, please. cause i dont see it. i do see bernando & yourself constructing
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#298
I'm still waiting for those links that back up your allegations here, but so far
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#349
Contempt conviction is NOT torture. You have a DUTY to testify, and a right to refuse...
reACTIONary
Oct 2012
#183
The intent is the same as the intent in torture. You are the only one saying the two are equivalent
Vincardog
Oct 2012
#230
When grand juries are abused to get information on political beliefs, etc. it is another matter.
antigone382
Oct 2012
#81
You mean she could be a rat?? Fortunately she has integrity and will not allow herself to be forced
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#162
There is only one person even accused of a crime here, unless you also believe that
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#167
what crime are they investigating? not anything that happened on may day, as the grand jury
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#242
We do not live in a totalitarian police state, no one is being persecuted...
reACTIONary
Oct 2012
#376
Well, it wasn't the three people who have just been sent to jail because none of them
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#353
yeah, and what would the grand jury have been investigating before may day that concerned
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#355
Doesn't the judge have the authority to hold the witness in contempt and not the prosecutor? nt
jody
Oct 2012
#23
Do you mean that a prosecutor has the authority to hold a witness in contempt and sentence them to
jody
Oct 2012
#48
Thanks, your "Obviously" answers "5. Who controls "a federal grand jury"? and its the judge.
jody
Oct 2012
#66
The question is simple, does a federal judge over a grand jury have sole authority to hold a
jody
Oct 2012
#49
Every judge is sole authority in their court although they can be overruled by a superior court on
jody
Oct 2012
#70
According to the judge's logic cheney and rove should be in prison for the next thousand lifetimes
Dont call me Shirley
Oct 2012
#18
I don't remember worked for Reagan but in his defense he probably didn't remember at that point. nt
jody
Oct 2012
#26
Yes it did work for him. He was never prosecuted, was he? And all his cohorts
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#173
We don't. People who lived in police states like E. Germany or Iraq know the difference between
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#33
most people in police states live perfectly routine lives, just as they do here. they live their
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#35
True. But in p.s. are all aware of what is happening all around them and they behave accordingly to
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#40
so all those folks in nazi germany who said they didn't know about the camps were lying?
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#42
No. Some of them were. But there was more to the Nazi police state than extermination camps. nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#45
The USA is not a police state, but there is a Prison-Industrial complex that is a little out of
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#47
Yes. It is understated. Not everyone sprinkles their posts with swearing. Sometimes I mistake DU for
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#55
It would be more efficient to not repeat most of the first line of your post as the
tblue37
Oct 2012
#92
Know why you oppose it, but not how you'd change it. BTW the lack of "serious" discussion is not you
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#192
I have already called you out & responded to every post of yours directed at me that wasn't nonsense
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#264
Well, my comment wasn't about opposing Grand Juries although I have read both
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#284
In a police state: detention without judicial review & compulsion of testimony w/o court order and +
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#50
Freedom House states that its Board of Trustees is composed of "business and labor leaders,
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#58
"They grant you immunity and if you don't testify they can throw you in jail."
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#83
Yes I saw the post. It does not logically follow that they can "force anyone to do anything". nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#87
because you say so? there are many ways to make people do what the police want, starting with
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#96
No. The person making the outlandish claim (force "anyone to do anything") has to buttress it.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#112
the woman didn't ask for immunity. she was given immunity in order to use the threat of jail time
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#218
Governments of free nations do not use drones to kill civilians in nations they are not at war
RC
Oct 2012
#166
"As of 2010, US federal government grants accounted for most of Freedom House's funding."
JackRiddler
Oct 2012
#102
Folks, the Freedom House graphic was illustrative, not definitive, & the discussion does not pivot
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#113
backing off it after it starts to become clear it's run by the same spooks who are running us
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#130
The graphic is not in any way pivotal or essential to any point I am making.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#185
DU is all about governing by consent. So why are you wasting time here if "the last vestige" vanish
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#114
I'm prety sure no one claimed DU is a police state, so that continues your streak of nonsense.
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#119
Well, read it that way if you must. Was talking about DU being all about the USA governed by consent
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#121
Wow, you do make bogus assumptions and then proceed to build & knock down straw men.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#187
So you are white? Then how can you claim to have the authority to unequivocally state that
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#221
Again you make the racist assumptions. My skin color is not in evidence and you divert with it.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#235
No, sorry, not going to happen. You are the one that has taken it upon yourself to
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#280
Did you just decide that you could tell the color of someone's skin from their username?
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#189
I wonder what one could tell from your avatar. Are you a white male writer, about 177 years old? nt
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#201
That I use Linux. I think your username says all one needs to know about you. n/t
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#224
Yes & yes. Egalitarian because I actually believe in real, complete equality. In a system wherein
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#223
I noted the implication. If it's wrong, fine. I think it is a fair assumption that the number of
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#220
I meant what I wrote. I never expected anyone to interpret it the way you did. DU a police state????
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#190
Apparently you slept through the few English classes you might have attended. I quoted, in whole,
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#225
Since when is pointing out that your point is without merit a personal attack? And when did it
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#316
Your attack is also personal when you call a DU member "a drunken moron":
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#327
It is also a personal attack to assume skin color of a DU member and assume that it matters.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#331
First, I did make that erroneous assumption and it is completely relevant to the challenge proposed.
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#337
Q remains: Since you state there is zero government by consent in the USA, why are you at DU which
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#191
Your question was answered in my previous reply. We're still waiting for you to provide
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#226
Actually, those claiming "police state" are arguing the binary mode. And about your personal attack
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#124
Will you please self-delete your accusation that a DU member is the Gestapo?
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#199
LOL! This guy reminds me of a drunken moron that heckles Sam Kinison.
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#227
That until the apparatus of the police state is used against them. Meanwhile, everyone else who is
tblue37
Oct 2012
#91
Yeah, AFTER it was TOO LATE! Too bad more of them didn't listen to the warnings
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#213
read the constitution. Read our laws already on the books. Don't like them? Change them
graham4anything
Oct 2012
#109
Thomas Jefferson jailed people who lived on his PROPERTY...i.e. they were his property &
graham4anything
Oct 2012
#358
Sheesh! slavery was alot more than wrong.I would think its a zillion times worse than Gitmo
graham4anything
Oct 2012
#363
you brought it up, same as you brought up Dr. King...I only was answering you...
graham4anything
Oct 2012
#368
well, someone did here, it wasn't me. I didn't bring Dr. King in to this
graham4anything
Oct 2012
#372
Yes, this 'forced immunity' law went on the books for the first time back in the '50s
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#351
so change the law. It's simple as A-B-C. Dr. King worked for change. It took decades.
graham4anything
Oct 2012
#359
The grand jury was convened *before* May Day (March 2, 2012). So it has nothing to do with
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#97
Um--that's probably the sitting grand jury. So what? Prosecutors generally use the sitting
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#179
What right? You are granted immunity so you won't be prosecuted for what you said
graham4anything
Oct 2012
#107
You don't have right to refuse to testify. That's been the case since the founding. nt
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#180
The fifth amendment is to avoid incriminating oneself for future prosecution.
graham4anything
Oct 2012
#106
That someone here thinks "Zbig is one of the good guys" shows how far we've gone...
Comrade Grumpy
Oct 2012
#126
The grand jury was convened *before* May Day. In March, to be exact. Do the feds usually
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#127
IIRC grand juries are allowed to investigate crimes that occur while they are seated
struggle4progress
Oct 2012
#141
nobody does. because it's 'secret' & doesn't have to be disclosed to the public. but we know
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#144
That sounds very much like the grand jury is looking into criminal conspiracy
struggle4progress
Oct 2012
#150
there were no 'wildings' in seattle on may day. but 'wilding' is a racially-charged word that was
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#151
Don't let facts and truthful framing of the issue get in the way of s4p's trolling! n/t
backscatter712
Oct 2012
#152
And I don't favor throwing people into prison for guilt-by-association.
backscatter712
Oct 2012
#169
She's not found guilty-by-association: she's held for contempt, a situation she can end whenever
struggle4progress
Oct 2012
#170
+1. Even if they call themselves "anarchists". Even if they *are* anarchists.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#203
none of the people in jail were in seattle on may day, let alone breaking windows in seattle.
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#216
You are out of cogent arguments, so you make the personal attack, as so many do.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#237
you must have missed the cognent argument: none of the people in jail were in seattle on may day,
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#240
"grand juries are by nature "fishing expeditions". Always have been always will." = wrong.
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#248
Fine. If they refuse subpoenas by grand juries investigating masked gangs smashing violently, then
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#239
"The masked gangs that subvert peaceful protests by suddenly smashing things need to be stopped."
tama
Oct 2012
#247
Yes, those too. But there are other issues as well and nothing is simple.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#249
Call it what you like: it's black-shirted masked thuggery in my book. Here:
struggle4progress
Oct 2012
#153
call it whatever names you like: the fact that there was vandalism on M1 by supposed
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#155
Her house-mate Matt Duran's statement emphasized: "I am in no way ever cooperating with the state"
struggle4progress
Oct 2012
#165
most of the public didn't experience any such thing. they saw it on tv -- the same shots,
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#168
Call it propaganda if you want, but blackshirted thugs smashing windows is bad news in any town
struggle4progress
Oct 2012
#204
i wouldn't answer except your language is so interesting. first you talk about 'wilding,' to draw
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#212
What has that got to do with these three people? None of them were at the May Day protests!
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#352
well, detention w/o trial is ok, you see, because she's 1) protecting criminals; 2) hiding something
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#134
Nobody has a constitutional right to not testify in a grand jury when granted immunity.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#135
If you don't like the law, change the law. No, they can't imprison anyone they like.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#182
no, the witness is in jail because she calls herself an anarchist. your point?
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#217
The witness is in jail for willfully breaking a law: refusing a subpoena; not because she calls
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#233
she didn't refuse a supoena. she answered the supoena and refused to testify. she was supoenaed
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#238
From my reading of TMIAHM and my take on the character of professor de la Paz
Fumesucker
Oct 2012
#250
My views are more complex than a fictional character or any of the fiction views of me posted in DU.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#278
they can imprison anyone they like. they can call a secret grand jury to target anyone they
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#357
No. They can't just pick some one & imprison them. A) The person has to willfully make a choice.
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#360
So, the Grand Jury is investigating whether other crimes have been committed?
Th1onein
Oct 2012
#194
The michigan militia is an organized paramilitary membership group, with dues. "Anarchists" are the
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#211
I just read some old Judith Miller threads....we were all for the rule of law, then. nt
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#275
+1. Funny how often the target or the hero/villain makes people take diametric opposite positions.nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#279
I find that the far right and the far left share a common view of the law: it's okay, as long as
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#286
What a totally incorrect assessment of DUers who oppose what is happening here.
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#287
The Improper Use of the Federal Grand Jury: An Instrument for the Internment of Political Activists"
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#297
Let's try again. It's a simple question. Name the "bad law." Not an article written in 1984. nt
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#308
If one wishes to repeal a "bad law," one might start with naming the law. Further, the 5th A does
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#322
I don't use "Google" for law. Perhaps that is why you cannot name the law you think is "bad."
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#330
Sabrina, you engaged me in this subthread, and wrote about a "bad law." While I am more than
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#335
I've made it pretty clear what is in my mind. The law which allowed a judge to
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#338
Sabrina, it may be clear in your mind, but the rest of us are still wondering which magical law was
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#345
Sabrina...'Title' in this instance, is a number. I still have no idea what "bad law"
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#365
As expected, this game you're playing is pretty childish and so transparent.
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#367
There you go again, sabrina, stuffing words into people's mouths, an abhorrent practice you say
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2012
#369
If you are familiar with the terminology, then just tell us which law you are calling a "bad law."
msanthrope
Oct 2012
#370
about your last paragraph on Dr. Rev. King, something irritates me here
graham4anything
Oct 2012
#304
I don't see these protesters 'whining' (and why is this word which has always been
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#311
You used Dr. King in your example. Change the law, but until then it is the law
graham4anything
Oct 2012
#314
so i'm wondering, with all the photographers and media around as the black bloc was breaking
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#229
Excellent analysis of what happened. This has become par for the course. When
sabrina 1
Oct 2012
#295
Speaking as someone who was involved with Black Market Drugs in the 60s and 70s,
bvar22
Oct 2012
#382