Portland woman thrown in jail for refusing grand jury inquisition

[dmancornell]

<broken link removed>

http://truth-out.org/news/item/11181-facing-grand-jury-intimidation-fear-silence-and-solidarity

There you have it folks, in the land of the free, thoughtcrime will get you raided by the SWAT gestapo, and practicing the 5th Amendment will get you thrown in prison.

Read More

 

[Solomon]

<broken link removed>

Well there you have it folks, in the land of the free, thoughtcrime will get you raided by the SWAT gestapo, and practicing the 5th Amendment will get you thrown in prison.

I don't see where it said she plead the 5th. The 5th amendment does not guarantee your right not to testify if you don't feel like it.

 

[dmancornell]

I don't see where it said she plead the 5th. The 5th amendment does not guarantee your right not to testify if you don't feel like it.

It used to, until the black-robed statists in the courts removed the right to silence.

 

[Solomon]

It used to, until the black-robed statists in the courts removed the right to silence.

Not until other black robe statists gave it. I'm not seeing it myself.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[dmancornell]

Not until other black robe statists gave it. I'm not seeing it myself.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Wait what now, the government gives people rights? Is that a joke?

The modern usage of the grand jury is a perversion of justice. Dragging people before closed inquisitions without representation, then throwing them in jail for refusing to cooperate, that sounds more like the soviet or nazi regimes than the supposed free world.

 

[Solomon]

Wait what now, the government gives people rights? Is that a joke?

The modern usage of the grand jury is a perversion of justice. Dragging people before closed inquisitions without representation, then throwing them in jail for refusing to cooperate, that sounds more like the soviet or nazi regimes than the supposed free world.

You said she was practicing the 5th amendment and got thrown into prison. I said not only does that not appear to be the case, but the 5th amendment does not apply here.

Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[dmancornell]

You said she was practicing the 5th amendment and got thrown into prison. I said not only does that not appear to be the case, but the 5th amendment does not apply here.

Don't put words in my mouth.

5th amendment applies because these people are being deprived of liberty without due process of the law (the natural law, not the BS bureaucratic law the DA's use to pad their stats and boost their political careers).

 

[Jamie6.5]

<broken link removed>
Facing Grand Jury Intimidation: Fear, Silence and Solidarity

There you have it folks, in the land of the free, thoughtcrime will get you raided by the SWAT gestapo, and practicing the 5th Amendment will get you thrown in prison.

I don't think it's as simple as those articles would have us believe.

First off, they were illegally occupying those residences. They didn't own or rent them, they were squatters with no legal right to their possession of them.
That limits their 4thA rights under search and seizure, much the same way there are limits to what rights you have to stuff stored on public property.
Despite that, investigators still had warrants for their searches.

Secondly, she has the right to claim the 5thA under questioning, as a way to prevent self incrimination, but not to prevent those responsible for protecting the public, and private property, from gathering information that seeks restitution for damages.
I see no problem with holding law-breakers and vandals responsible for their actions.
Do you?

She would have been better off to go to the grand jury proceedings and "take the fifth" on individual questions.
To just flat refuse a legal summons (due process) implies that you refuse to participate in the system.
While that may make a statement, it also reveals the fact that, in this case, she wants to use the system to protect herself, but deny it's protections to others.

She wants it both ways, and it doesn't work like that.

 

[Swedish K]

I may be mistaken but the fifth says you can not be compelled to testify against yourself and If I recall it extends to a spouse. It does not apply if being asked questions regarding a third party. Also - you can be required to answer if given immunity regarding testimony. The odd thing is that witnesses called before the grand jury are not required to be notified who the intended target is for prosecution or even what the crime being explored is.
Technically a person held in contempt is normally jailed, not sent to prison. Jails are for terms up to 364 days, prison is for those convicted of a felony with a term over 1 year. There are some rare exceptions, such as high risk or high profile individuals held without bail who waive the right to a speedy trial. Those persons are held as "safekeepers" until trial in protective custody unit for the safety of themselves, others, or on rare occasion high escape risk defendants.

 

[michaels]

The really interestinh thing about this case also, is that it involved a protest in Seattle that this woman DID NOT attend. Nothing to do with squatting.

Also, the swat team that raided the house were given instructions to search for anarchist literature.

Which should make you afraid for your own rights, and what you read.

3rd, if i remember the details correctly, the only.person who was charged with any crime in Seattle, where this woman was not, got a sentence of. 40 some days, time served.

Regardless of your political leanings, this is a horrifying precedent.

 

[Grunwald]

Not until other black robe statists gave it. I'm not seeing it myself.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Does highlighting it help?

 

[Jamie6.5]

So, what recourse do I have if a crowd of black-block communo-anarchists come down my street and break all the windows out of my vehicles and my house when I'm away?

Should investigators NOT seek out organizational info that encouraged that? Should they NOT be allowed to seek restitution on my behalf?

They had warrants to acquire information regarding the organization of the march riot, and to info that might help identify key players/perpetrators.
That's in their job description, they used due process in the acquisition of evidence, and in their summons of Ms. Plante.

A more "horrifying precedent" for me would be that these people can run-amuck in our cities destroying public and private property, and officials shrugging their shoulders and telling me no one can be held responsible, and that I have to pay for the results of their misbehavior.

There is significant responsibility required in the exercise of liberty.
To espouse otherwise is to advocate for the loss of the latter, due to a failure of the former.
Be it personal or societal.

 

[jake2far]

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Perhaps an understanding of "due process" is something you lack. The Grand Jury process is due process, if you don't like it change the law. The Grand Jury has the power to look into anything it deems necessary; it seems to me that the Grand Jury made up of citizens who are not elected to office and are empowered to do their job in place of politicians was a system put in place to prevent political control of the law. Citizens who are from normal walk of life are far different than career Politicians.
The 5th can only be invoked from self incrimination, not to protect others from prosecution.
If one invokes the 5th it is not selective, read up on how to invoke the 5th. The placing of someone in jail for failure to comply with a subpoena is very old law, has many cases to back it up.
Let’s see in our country you get hauled in front of citizens who look at the law and decide for themselves if the law is correct and if prosecution should happen, that is nothing like the old Soviet Union or any other controlled society. Please don't throw around inaccurate accusations if you have no clue how it works.

Jim

 

[longcolt]

So, what recourse do I have if a crowd of black-block communo-anarchists come down my street and break all the windows out of my vehicles and my house when I'm away?

Should investigators NOT seek out organizational info that encouraged that? Should they NOT be allowed to seek restitution on my behalf?

They had warrants to acquire information regarding the organization of the march riot, and to info that might help identify key players/perpetrators.
That's in their job description, they used due process in the acquisition of evidence, and in their summons of Ms. Plante.

A more "horrifying precedent" for me would be that these people can run-amuck in our cities destroying public and private property, and officials shrugging their shoulders and telling me no one can be held responsible, and that I have to pay for the results of their misbehavior.

There is significant responsibility required in the exercise of liberty.
To espouse otherwise is to advocate for the loss of the latter, due to a failure of the former.
Be it personal or societal.

I have to agree. Protesting is one thing but the leaders of these groups that are violent deserve to be put through the wringer. Most are big babies that don't work, suck off the system, have wealthy parents and just act out anti-social behavior. I have little sympathy for them.

 

[michaels]

Look, I'm not defending these anarchists.

But, ask yourself this.

What is more frightening?

A group of people without a whole lot of money that put together demonstrations once in a blue moon?
Where, yes sometimes a window gets broken. ( and yes the individual responsible should be held responsible)

Or......

A group of attorneys, judges, and policemen, with budgets in the millions and more.
Who get promoted on their ability to prosecute.

 

[longcolt]

Look, I'm not defending these anarchists.

But, ask yourself this.

What is more frightening?

A group of people without a whole lot of money that put together demonstrations once in a blue moon?
Where, yes sometimes a window gets broken. ( and yes the individual responsible should be held responsible)

Or......

A group of attorneys, judges, and policemen, with budgets in the millions and more.
Who get promoted on their ability to prosecute.

Hey it could be a lot worse. Look at history when Asians were locked up in camps due to a perceived threat. Kent State where protesters were shot for rioting. There are hundreds of incidents like these over the years.

These folks have the same rights as the rest of us. They get a free defensive attorney and if they win in their day in court they go free and maybe get a big fat check for their time.

Most of these folks go from city to city stirring the pot. Paid by organizations to push and prod others to act out their personal anger toward whatever cause. Sooner or later the KARMA comes back at you. Times up, I guess.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Look, I'm not defending these anarchists.

But, ask yourself this.

What is more frightening?

A group of people without a whole lot of money that put together demonstrations once in a blue moon?
Where, yes sometimes a window gets broken. ( and yes the individual responsible should be held responsible)

Or......

A group of attorneys, judges, and policemen, with budgets in the millions and more.
Who get promoted on their ability to prosecute.

In a Grand Jury proceeding, the attorneys, and policemen present evidence and ask questions of participants and witnesses to develop a case (or not) that will be used to charge a person or group in a criminal case.
The people determining the outcome are citizens/civilians that are summoned for Grand Jury duty, just like the summons for regular jury duty.

In a peaceful march that represents "a redress of grievances" where a window gets broken incidentally, you might have a point.
In the case of civil disobedience where the principal goal is to damage police cars/buildings, deface/damage public infrastructure, and damage private property, then as far as I'm concerned, the full resources of the judicial system needs to be brought to bear in stopping it, or holding the perpetrators, and any conspirators that organized it accountable.

This wasn't a case of "incidental damage" to windows, parks, signs, cop cars, tires, buildings and banks.
This was intentional, as anyone who has seen the videos can attest to.

As a result of theses people's actions, cities, individuals and businesses are out tens-of-thousands of dollars, and someone needs to be held accountable.

To imply otherwise is disingenuous at best, and downright dishonest at worst.

 

[JGRuby]

If you want to be a anarchist and act in such fashion as an anarchist does accept the consequences for such action. No one should have the right to intentionally destroy the property of another for civic disobedeince. The action alone calls for reprecssions on those that do the destruction. The part that gets me is this statement ""You can show your solidarity by refusing to co-operate with any police force and encouraging your friends and families to do the same." Anarchists wether they like it or not share this society and though I am not typically on the side of law enforcement - I must still respect that law enforcement has a purpose for being and that is to protect society as a whole. If someone doesnt like the society that they live in they are free to go start thier own somewhere else in some other part of the world. This is my opinion.

In short: dont be an anarchist or accept the consequnces of being one. All actions have consequences.

James Ruby

 

[dmancornell]

If you want to be a anarchist and act in such fashion as an anarchist does accept the consequences for such action. No one should have the right to intentionally destroy the property of another for civic disobedeince. The action alone calls for reprecssions on those that do the destruction. The part that gets me is this statement ""You can show your solidarity by refusing to co-operate with any police force and encouraging your friends and families to do the same." Anarchists wether they like it or not share this society and though I am not typically on the side of law enforcement - I must still respect that law enforcement has a purpose for being and that is to protect society as a whole. If someone doesnt like the society that they live in they are free to go start thier own somewhere else in some other part of the world. This is my opinion.

In short: dont be an anarchist or accept the consequnces of being one. All actions have consequences.

James Ruby

And that's why the three people rotting in prison now have been charged with property crimes. Oh wait, they haven't.

Gotta love the government shills yapping about how "anarchists" deserve this type of treatment due to their politics. Is it really that hard to picture the regime using the exact same grand jury inquisition to imprison gun owners when the "assault rifle" ban returns?

 

[dmancornell]

The Grand Jury process is due process, if you don't like it change the law.

How exactly was it due process for this woman when she was thrown in jail for refusing to participate in some government witch-hunt of her associates? This is only due process if you believe the state has the right to force people to show up at a closed questioning because the state cannot make any charges stick and they want to pad their prosecution stats.

The Grand Jury has the power to look into anything it deems necessary; it seems to me that the Grand Jury made up of citizens who are not elected to office and are empowered to do their job in place of politicians was a system put in place to prevent political control of the law.

The citizens who comprise the juries are irrelevant since non-compliance means they are never in the picture. It is the local government apparatchiks who organize the grand jury in the first place, then imprison people for refusing to cooperate.

The 5th can only be invoked from self incrimination, not to protect others from prosecution.

Actually they are one and the same, people cannot be compelled to make accusations against anyone if they choose not to.

If one invokes the 5th it is not selective, read up on how to invoke the 5th. The placing of someone in jail for failure to comply with a subpoena is very old law, has many cases to back it up.
Let's see in our country you get hauled in front of citizens who look at the law and decide for themselves if the law is correct and if prosecution should happen, that is nothing like the old Soviet Union or any other controlled society. Please don't throw around inaccurate accusations if you have no clue how it works.

No, the hauling/imprisonment part pretty much makes it clear this country isn't free at all. I guess your point is that we should be thankful we don't get a bullet in the back of the head afterwards, whew.