Chelsea Manning attempts to destroy 'grand jury' system using their actions as wrecking ball!
💝 Love you Chelsea! See you at the Barricades 🏴☠️ "When Judge Anthony Trenga ordered Chelsea Manning back to jail for refusing to testify before the grand jury investigating WikiLeaks, he urged her to “reflect on the principles she says she’s embracing” as well as “whether those views are worth the price she’s paying for them.” Trenga maintained there was “no dishonor” in cooperating with a grand jury because the United States Constitution codified the grand jury. Manning took Trenga’s admonishment seriously and responded with a letter containing research she did with the help of her attorneys. It presented her position on the grand jury in a very clear and compelling manner. In doing so, Manning further demonstrated her resistance is about much more than defying an investigation into a dissident media organization. It is about publicly discrediting the institution and all its corruption once and for all. Manning, who is in jail at the William G. Truesdale Adult Detention Center in Alexandria, Virginia, was held in civil contempt of court on May 16. The federal court not only sent her back to jail but also imposed a fine of $500 per day after 30 days and a fine of $1000 per day after 60 days if she continues her resistance. If Manning “persists in her refusal” for the next 16 months, according to her legal team, she will face a total amount of fines that is over $440,000. Both jail and fines may violate her Eighth Amendment rights under the Constitution, especially since these sanctions are supposed to be coercive, not punitive. In her letter [PDF], Manning contended the modern grand jury barely resemble the grand jury, which the framers enshrined in the Constitution. She acknowledges much of her opposition comes from their use against activists but also makes it clear she believes the institution generally undermines due process for all citizens." https://medium.com/@kevin_33184/chelsea-mannings-resistance-brings-u-s-close...
On 12/17/19, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
https://medium.com/@kevin_33184/chelsea-mannings-resistance-brings-u-s-close... 💝 Love you Chelsea! See you at the Barricades 🏴☠️
Then post her words. It's also her birthday. 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-excl... https://shadowproof.com/2019/12/10/opponent-paul-rosenzweig-wikileaks-vault-... https://twitter.com/freejeremynet https://freejeremy.net/ https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/10/jeremy-hammond-issues-statement-explain... https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/10/imprisoned-activist-jeremy-hammond-foun... Chelsea... https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6112339/Chelsea-Manning-s-Letter-... https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6112339/Chelsea-Manning-s-Letter-... " 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-explain... " 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 "
On 12/17/19, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/17/19, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
https://medium.com/@kevin_33184/chelsea-mannings-resistance-brings-u-s-close... 💝 Love you Chelsea! See you at the Barricades 🏴☠️
Then post her words. It's also her birthday.
HIS. Post *his* words. Just because you "feel like a girl" doesn't make you a girl. If I felt like a horse, would I be a horse, too? Sometimes the Left is as stupid as the Right. \0xD
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 09:14:17PM -0600, \0xDynamite wrote:
On 12/17/19, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/17/19, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
https://medium.com/@kevin_33184/chelsea-mannings-resistance-brings-u-s-close... 💝 Love you Chelsea! See you at the Barricades 🏴☠️
Then post her words. It's also her birthday.
HIS. Post *his* words. Just because you "feel like a girl" doesn't make you a girl. If I felt like a horse, would I be a horse, too?
Sometimes the Left is as stupid as the Right.
\0xD
For those who -really- want to smash the field and simultaneously accuse most of the world of an "-ism" and a "-phobia", get behind the trans-age rights movement and expose the bigots :D Defeat the sub-junoir hockey teams by simply allowing them to bump into you like dominoes as you careen down the field. Smash the early primary school swimming "open" medals with a clean sweep of the podium, whilst simultaneously defending the right of trans-age-ists everywhere and putting all bald faced trans-age-phobes in their place. Feel like a winner -every- month as you high-jump WAY over the heads of all the competition and really nail some human rights into the school bored. Be an upstanding winner - defeat ageism today! Next up - apparel freedom - we shall NOT be oppressed by your superficial patriarchal shame not any no more never!
On Tuesday, December 17, 2019, 07:15:35 PM PST, \0xDynamite <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/17/19, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/17/19, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
https://medium.com/@kevin_33184/chelsea-mannings-resistance-brings-u-s-close... 💝 Love you Chelsea! See you at the Barricades 🏴☠️
Then post her words. It's also her birthday.
HIS. Post *his* words. Just because you "feel like a girl" doesn't make you a girl. If I felt like a horse, would I be a horse, too?
Sometimes the Left is as stupid as the Right.
Yes, I've long laughed at people who think that somebody can believe they are the 'wrong sex'. I've only had one brain, and one body. Sure they seem to match, but how would I know otherwise? I have no idea how a person would believe he (or she) is the 'wrong' sex. How would they know what the other sex feels like? Jim Bell
On 12/17/2019 08:14 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
On 12/17/19, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/17/19, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
https://medium.com/@kevin_33184/chelsea-mannings-resistance-brings-u-s-close... 💝 Love you Chelsea! See you at the Barricades 🏴☠️
Then post her words. It's also her birthday.
HIS. Post *his* words. Just because you "feel like a girl" doesn't make you a girl. If I felt like a horse, would I be a horse, too?
If you wanted to be a horse, why not? At some point, I'm sure that there will be species-change technology.
Sometimes the Left is as stupid as the Right.
I have no clue why ideology must be one dimensional.
\0xD
💝 Love you Chelsea! See you at the Barricades 🏴☠️
Then post her words. It's also her birthday.
HIS. Post *his* words. Just because you "feel like a girl" doesn't make you a girl. If I felt like a horse, would I be a horse, too?
If you wanted to be a horse, why not?
Maybe because I'd still be 90% human????
At some point, I'm sure that there will be species-change technology.
No, why would you assume so? Do you think cutting off your penis makes you a woman, too? Just what kind of bullshit will you be willing to turn away from? When does it stop for you?
Sometimes the Left is as stupid as the Right.
I have no clue why ideology must be one dimensional.
No clue? How about mental illness? If you want any-dimensional "spectra", then there is no such thing as mental illness either, right? Have you ever tested your philosophy on anyone older than high school? Seriously, \0xd
On 12/17/2019 11:37 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
💝 Love you Chelsea! See you at the Barricades 🏴☠️
Then post her words. It's also her birthday.
HIS. Post *his* words. Just because you "feel like a girl" doesn't make you a girl. If I felt like a horse, would I be a horse, too?
If you wanted to be a horse, why not?
Maybe because I'd still be 90% human????
At some point, I'm sure that there will be species-change technology.
No, why would you assume so? Do you think cutting off your penis makes you a woman, too? Just what kind of bullshit will you be willing to turn away from? When does it stop for you?
Me, I'm happy as I am. As long as I get my testosterone and modafinil, anyway. But why should whatever you or I think or want matter for anyone else? And about the penis thing. As I understand it, they basically invert and expand the penis. So the glans becomes the clitoris, and the interior becomes the vagina. It's a crude hack, for sure. But it is more or less consistent with developmental homology.
Sometimes the Left is as stupid as the Right.
I have no clue why ideology must be one dimensional.
No clue? How about mental illness? If you want any-dimensional "spectra", then there is no such thing as mental illness either, right?
Those aren't arguments, just insults.
Have you ever tested your philosophy on anyone older than high school?
Seriously,
\0xd
💝 Love you Chelsea! See you at the Barricades 🏴☠️
Then post her words. It's also her birthday.
HIS. Post *his* words. Just because you "feel like a girl" doesn't make you a girl. If I felt like a horse, would I be a horse, too?
If you wanted to be a horse, why not?
Maybe because I'd still be 90% human????
At some point, I'm sure that there will be species-change technology.
No, why would you assume so? Do you think cutting off your penis makes you a woman, too? Just what kind of bullshit will you be willing to turn away from? When does it stop for you?
Me, I'm happy as I am. As long as I get my testosterone and modafinil, anyway.
So you're not happy without augmentation?
But why should whatever you or I think or want matter for anyone else?
Very simply: the choices of ONE person eventually and INEVITABLY affect SOMEONE ELSE. Have you thought about this much?
And about the penis thing. As I understand it, they basically invert and expand the penis. So the glans becomes the clitoris, and the interior becomes the vagina. It's a crude hack, for sure. But it is more or less consistent with developmental homology.
HA, why would that make you a woman? Do you think a woman is defined by her vagina? You are the one who insults people.
Sometimes the Left is as stupid as the Right.
I have no clue why ideology must be one dimensional.
No clue? How about mental illness? If you want any-dimensional "spectra", then there is no such thing as mental illness either, right?
Those aren't arguments, just insults.
Not quite "just". They are based on a the medical professions best opinion, albeit from the 1980s. You suppose the science for gender changed much since then?
Have you ever tested your philosophy on anyone older than high school?
I think not, but I meant with a *maturity* of someone older than high school, sorry. \0xD
On 12/18/2019 12:14 AM, \0xDynamite wrote:
> 💝 Love you Chelsea! See you at the Barricades 🏴☠️
Then post her words. It's also her birthday.
HIS. Post *his* words. Just because you "feel like a girl" doesn't make you a girl. If I felt like a horse, would I be a horse, too?
If you wanted to be a horse, why not?
Maybe because I'd still be 90% human????
At some point, I'm sure that there will be species-change technology.
No, why would you assume so? Do you think cutting off your penis makes you a woman, too? Just what kind of bullshit will you be willing to turn away from? When does it stop for you?
Me, I'm happy as I am. As long as I get my testosterone and modafinil, anyway.
So you're not happy without augmentation?
No, I'm not. I'm old, and my body no longer makes enough testosterone to keep me healthy. And the modafinil definitely makes me happier. I mean, the bloody Air Force uses it, and they arguably know what they're doing.
But why should whatever you or I think or want matter for anyone else?
Very simply: the choices of ONE person eventually and INEVITABLY affect SOMEONE ELSE. Have you thought about this much?
No, I don't worry too much about it. People ought to mind their own business, unless I invite them into mine. And if they don't otherwise stay out of my business, I'm free to defend myself.
And about the penis thing. As I understand it, they basically invert and expand the penis. So the glans becomes the clitoris, and the interior becomes the vagina. It's a crude hack, for sure. But it is more or less consistent with developmental homology.
HA, why would that make you a woman? Do you think a woman is defined by her vagina? You are the one who insults people.
That's ridiculous. Gender is no more one dimensional -- male vs female -- than political ideology is. And even if it were, we're developing technology that makes all of that irrelevant.
Sometimes the Left is as stupid as the Right.
I have no clue why ideology must be one dimensional.
No clue? How about mental illness? If you want any-dimensional "spectra", then there is no such thing as mental illness either, right?
Those aren't arguments, just insults.
Not quite "just". They are based on a the medical professions best opinion, albeit from the 1980s. You suppose the science for gender changed much since then?
I'm sure that it's changed a lot. If it hadn't, they'd all be bloody idiots, no? And anyway, the topic there was Left vs Right, not Male vs Female.
Have you ever tested your philosophy on anyone older than high school?
I think not, but I meant with a *maturity* of someone older than high school, sorry.
Whatever dude.
\0xD
\0xDynamite wrote:
> 💝 Love you Chelsea! See you at the Barricades 🏴☠️ Then post her words. It's also her birthday. HIS. Post *his* words. Just because you "feel like a girl" doesn't make you a girl. If I felt like a horse, would I be a horse, too? If you wanted to be a horse, why not? Maybe because I'd still be 90% human????
At some point, I'm sure that there will be species-change technology. No, why would you assume so? Do you think cutting off your penis makes you a woman, too? Just what kind of bullshit will you be willing to turn away from? When does it stop for you? Me, I'm happy as I am. As long as I get my testosterone and modafinil, anyway. So you're not happy without augmentation?
But why should whatever you or I think or want matter for anyone else? Very simply: the choices of ONE person eventually and INEVITABLY affect SOMEONE ELSE. Have you thought about this much?
Fuck your "Butterfly Effect". It's a pop culture hipster narrative that leads to a life of do-nothingness. Be-nothingness Further, I'm what's referred to as CIS het, but NO ONE is ALL Male, OR ALL Female, and in my world you can be whatever gender you fucking well want, and I'll defend the right to do that. (I SWEAR, some of the worst FAGGOTS I ever met are men who think they're all-man.) That's YOU \0x. Kiss kiss, Rr
And about the penis thing. As I understand it, they basically invert and expand the penis. So the glans becomes the clitoris, and the interior becomes the vagina. It's a crude hack, for sure. But it is more or less consistent with developmental homology. HA, why would that make you a woman? Do you think a woman is defined by her vagina? You are the one who insults people.
Sometimes the Left is as stupid as the Right. I have no clue why ideology must be one dimensional. No clue? How about mental illness? If you want any-dimensional "spectra", then there is no such thing as mental illness either, right? Those aren't arguments, just insults. Not quite "just". They are based on a the medical professions best opinion, albeit from the 1980s. You suppose the science for gender changed much since then?
Have you ever tested your philosophy on anyone older than high school? I think not, but I meant with a *maturity* of someone older than high school, sorry.
\0xD
On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 23:50:19 -0700 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
And about the penis thing. As I understand it, they basically invert and expand the penis. So the glans becomes the clitoris, and the interior becomes the vagina. It's a crude hack, for sure.
are there any women going through a similar butchery to 'become' 'men'? In the case of women I guess they would have to cut off their tits and have a dick implant? anyway, there certainly are variations in sex and there may even be a percentage of people who are hermaphrodites, but how big is it?
Gender is no more one dimensional -- male vs female -- than political ideology is. And even if it were, we're developing technology that makes all of that irrelevant.
what's that supposed to mean, exactly? The matrix bullshit, which in reality means that humanity is exterminated?
On 12/18/2019 03:45 PM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 23:50:19 -0700 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
And about the penis thing. As I understand it, they basically invert and expand the penis. So the glans becomes the clitoris, and the interior becomes the vagina. It's a crude hack, for sure.
are there any women going through a similar butchery to 'become' 'men'? In the case of women I guess they would have to cut off their tits and have a dick implant?
I'm sure there are. But you know, guys have tits too. With more testosterone and less estrogen, they get smaller. I don't know how they make dicks. You could search about it.
anyway, there certainly are variations in sex and there may even be a percentage of people who are hermaphrodites, but how big is it?
It's hard to say. It used to be common for pediatric surgeons to correct variations at birth, or soon thereafter. Often without telling parents. But they do that less, now. Which maybe accounts for it being more of an issue. And it's not just physical variations.
Gender is no more one dimensional -- male vs female -- than political ideology is. And even if it were, we're developing technology that makes all of that irrelevant.
what's that supposed to mean, exactly? The matrix bullshit, which in reality means that humanity is exterminated?
No, not virtual reality. Better understanding of biological systems. Growing organs on 3D printed jello from stem cells. Give you a new liver, new kidneys, a new dick. Whatever you want. We're just meat machines, after all. Nothing magic.
Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 23:50:19 -0700 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
And about the penis thing. As I understand it, they basically invert and expand the penis. So the glans becomes the clitoris, and the interior becomes the vagina. It's a crude hack, for sure.
are there any women going through a similar butchery to 'become' 'men'?
Yes.
In the case of women I guess they would have to cut off their tits and have a dick implant?
Yes and yes.
anyway, there certainly are variations in sex and there may even be a percentage of people who are hermaphrodites, but how big is it?
Small, but this isn't about that. It's about PSYCHOLOGY and EMOTIONS that make you feel more like a woman or man, and possibly following up by 'transforming'.
Gender is no more one dimensional -- male vs female -- than political ideology is. And even if it were, we're developing technology that makes all of that irrelevant.
what's that supposed to mean, exactly? The matrix bullshit, which in reality means that humanity is exterminated?
It means, lets say, I'm a wild in the streets anarchist but my economics are conservative. For instance I think a standing army that invades countries to bolster US consumer capitalism and the lifestyle is COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and economically the Pentagon is a waste of taxpayers dollars whse funds needs to be entirely redirected to assisting US citizens in their day to day life when needed, and also to MAKE FRIENDS, instead of enemies that cost us in WarBucks, by engaging in development projects that aren't driven by economic blackmail (IMF/WTO austerity etc) of Crapitalism. Political thinking isn't black white and neither is gender, except for the mechanics (Dick/Puss etc) that represent just a part of what gender really means. Rr
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 17:21:13 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
anyway, there certainly are variations in sex and there may even be a percentage of people who are hermaphrodites, but how big is it?
Small, but this isn't about that. It's about PSYCHOLOGY and EMOTIONS that make you feel more like a woman or man, and possibly following up by 'transforming'.
well I can see how there may be variations in sex. Sex being after all a biological phenomenom and nature being pretty complex. on the other hand, if a more or less 'standard' male or female individual thinks he's of the wrong sex based only on 'psychological' grounds then I would tend to be not so impressed... ...but I can think of some 'psychological' explanations, too. For instance, male children abused by men-hating feminazi mothers may certainly be brainwashed and end up wanting to 'change their sex'. And that sort of abuse may certainly be common in western feminazi cesspools like the US and vasal states. anyway, people are free to do whatever they want with their bodies. Just like I'm free to refer to manning as 'him'.
It means, lets say, I'm a wild in the streets anarchist but my economics are conservative. For instance I think a standing army that invades countries to bolster US consumer capitalism and the lifestyle is COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and economically the Pentagon is a waste of taxpayers dollars whse funds needs to be entirely redirected to assisting US citizens in their day to day life when needed, and also to MAKE FRIENDS, instead of enemies that cost us in WarBucks, by engaging in development projects that aren't driven by economic blackmail (IMF/WTO austerity etc) of Crapitalism.
well opposing an aberration like US imperialism is a basic requirement for anarchism - I don't see much of a contradiction there
Political thinking isn't black white and neither is gender,
no doubt a natural phenomenom like sex can have (wide) variations...
except for the mechanics (Dick/Puss etc) that represent just a part of what gender really means.
gender is a technical term used in grammar.
Rr
The issue we can certainly take against "the modern left" is their ceaseless barrage against "CIS het"s - the agenda to normalize LGBTQP5 is so "in everybody's faces", with those who choose to speak pronouns according to what seems "self evident" to them and by their free will, are being "outed" as alleged "bigots", often times doxxed, and legislation is being brought in of absolutely abhorrent nature to cause the majority of humans who "speak normally" to here and there be legally targetted with spiteful hate speech, in the name of "defending against hate speech". To say nothing of the effect on women's sports, actual trans people who many CIS hets now (by default) tend to hold enmity towards for 'all the brouhaha' etc. This campaign appears on the surface to be nothing other than a relentless anti-White, anti-CIS het, anti-maintstream bullying of the majority, by any and every means that a small vocal and 'violent' minority. And -that- all seems to be a circus to entertain (rather, keep distracted), the majority, so that as the USD collapses and a new fiat must be issued in its place, TFBPTB (The Forever Bracketted Powers That Be) may thereby swipe us for another century with another debt based enslaving fiat of their choosing, in their control, and executed with nothing but unethical stolen sovereignty of the people! Go buy your semi autos, get deputised, stash a decent supply of water and non-perishable food, and likewise train your children to be able to intelligently defend themselves, and each other, when in a situation involving aggressive roaming food- and sex- seeking gangs. Now is the time folks - get your house in order already! On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:23:24PM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 17:21:13 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
anyway, there certainly are variations in sex and there may even be a percentage of people who are hermaphrodites, but how big is it?
Small, but this isn't about that. It's about PSYCHOLOGY and EMOTIONS that make you feel more like a woman or man, and possibly following up by 'transforming'.
well I can see how there may be variations in sex. Sex being after all a biological phenomenom and nature being pretty complex.
on the other hand, if a more or less 'standard' male or female individual thinks he's of the wrong sex based only on 'psychological' grounds then I would tend to be not so impressed...
...but I can think of some 'psychological' explanations, too. For instance, male children abused by men-hating feminazi mothers may certainly be brainwashed and end up wanting to 'change their sex'. And that sort of abuse may certainly be common in western feminazi cesspools like the US and vasal states.
anyway, people are free to do whatever they want with their bodies. Just like I'm free to refer to manning as 'him'.
It means, lets say, I'm a wild in the streets anarchist but my economics are conservative. For instance I think a standing army that invades countries to bolster US consumer capitalism and the lifestyle is COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and economically the Pentagon is a waste of taxpayers dollars whse funds needs to be entirely redirected to assisting US citizens in their day to day life when needed, and also to MAKE FRIENDS, instead of enemies that cost us in WarBucks, by engaging in development projects that aren't driven by economic blackmail (IMF/WTO austerity etc) of Crapitalism.
well opposing an aberration like US imperialism is a basic requirement for anarchism - I don't see much of a contradiction there
Political thinking isn't black white and neither is gender,
no doubt a natural phenomenom like sex can have (wide) variations...
except for the mechanics (Dick/Puss etc) that represent just a part of what gender really means.
gender is a technical term used in grammar.
Rr
"Get deputised"? Seriously! Rr Zenaan Harkness wrote:
The issue we can certainly take against "the modern left" is their ceaseless barrage against "CIS het"s - the agenda to normalize LGBTQP5 is so "in everybody's faces", with those who choose to speak pronouns according to what seems "self evident" to them and by their free will, are being "outed" as alleged "bigots", often times doxxed, and legislation is being brought in of absolutely abhorrent nature to cause the majority of humans who "speak normally" to here and there be legally targetted with spiteful hate speech, in the name of "defending against hate speech".
To say nothing of the effect on women's sports, actual trans people who many CIS hets now (by default) tend to hold enmity towards for 'all the brouhaha' etc.
This campaign appears on the surface to be nothing other than a relentless anti-White, anti-CIS het, anti-maintstream bullying of the majority, by any and every means that a small vocal and 'violent' minority.
And -that- all seems to be a circus to entertain (rather, keep distracted), the majority, so that as the USD collapses and a new fiat must be issued in its place, TFBPTB (The Forever Bracketted Powers That Be) may thereby swipe us for another century with another debt based enslaving fiat of their choosing, in their control, and executed with nothing but unethical stolen sovereignty of the people!
Go buy your semi autos, get deputised, stash a decent supply of water and non-perishable food, and likewise train your children to be able to intelligently defend themselves, and each other, when in a situation involving aggressive roaming food- and sex- seeking gangs.
Now is the time folks - get your house in order already!
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:23:24PM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 17:21:13 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
anyway, there certainly are variations in sex and there may even be a percentage of people who are hermaphrodites, but how big is it?
Small, but this isn't about that. It's about PSYCHOLOGY and EMOTIONS that make you feel more like a woman or man, and possibly following up by 'transforming'.
well I can see how there may be variations in sex. Sex being after all a biological phenomenom and nature being pretty complex.
on the other hand, if a more or less 'standard' male or female individual thinks he's of the wrong sex based only on 'psychological' grounds then I would tend to be not so impressed...
...but I can think of some 'psychological' explanations, too. For instance, male children abused by men-hating feminazi mothers may certainly be brainwashed and end up wanting to 'change their sex'. And that sort of abuse may certainly be common in western feminazi cesspools like the US and vasal states.
anyway, people are free to do whatever they want with their bodies. Just like I'm free to refer to manning as 'him'.
It means, lets say, I'm a wild in the streets anarchist but my economics are conservative. For instance I think a standing army that invades countries to bolster US consumer capitalism and the lifestyle is COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and economically the Pentagon is a waste of taxpayers dollars whse funds needs to be entirely redirected to assisting US citizens in their day to day life when needed, and also to MAKE FRIENDS, instead of enemies that cost us in WarBucks, by engaging in development projects that aren't driven by economic blackmail (IMF/WTO austerity etc) of Crapitalism.
well opposing an aberration like US imperialism is a basic requirement for anarchism - I don't see much of a contradiction there
Political thinking isn't black white and neither is gender,
no doubt a natural phenomenom like sex can have (wide) variations...
except for the mechanics (Dick/Puss etc) that represent just a part of what gender really means.
gender is a technical term used in grammar.
Rr
Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 17:21:13 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
anyway, there certainly are variations in sex and there may even be a percentage of people who are hermaphrodites, but how big is it?
Small, but this isn't about that. It's about PSYCHOLOGY and EMOTIONS that make you feel more like a woman or man, and possibly following up by 'transforming'.
well I can see how there may be variations in sex. Sex being after all a biological phenomenom and nature being pretty complex.
on the other hand, if a more or less 'standard' male or female individual thinks he's of the wrong sex based only on 'psychological' grounds then I would tend to be not so impressed...
...but I can think of some 'psychological' explanations, too. For instance, male children abused by men-hating feminazi mothers may certainly be brainwashed and end up wanting to 'change their sex'. And that sort of abuse may certainly be common in western feminazi cesspools like the US and vasal states.
anyway, people are free to do whatever they want with their bodies. Just like I'm free to refer to manning as 'him'.
It means, lets say, I'm a wild in the streets anarchist but my economics are conservative. For instance I think a standing army that invades countries to bolster US consumer capitalism and the lifestyle is COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and economically the Pentagon is a waste of taxpayers dollars whse funds needs to be entirely redirected to assisting US citizens in their day to day life when needed, and also to MAKE FRIENDS, instead of enemies that cost us in WarBucks, by engaging in development projects that aren't driven by economic blackmail (IMF/WTO austerity etc) of Crapitalism.
well opposing an aberration like US imperialism is a basic requirement for anarchism - I don't see much of a contradiction there
Political thinking isn't black white and neither is gender,
no doubt a natural phenomenom like sex can have (wide) variations...
except for the mechanics (Dick/Puss etc) that represent just a part of what gender really means.
gender is a technical term used in grammar.
"Grammatical gender is only very loosely associated with natural distinctions of sex." Google's definition (dictionary.com I believe): gen·der /ˈjendər/ noun noun: gender; plural noun: genders 1. either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female. "a condition that affects people of both genders" members of a particular gender considered as a group. "social interaction between the genders" the fact or condition of belonging to or identifying with a particular gender. "video ads will target users based only on age and gender" 2. Grammar (in languages such as Latin, Greek, Russian, and German) each of the classes (typically masculine, feminine, common, neuter) of nouns and pronouns distinguished by the different inflections that they have and require in words syntactically associated with them. Grammatical gender is only very loosely associated with natural distinctions of sex. the property (in nouns and related words) of belonging to a gender. "adjectives usually agree with the noun in gender and number" Origin late Middle English: from Old French gendre (modern genre ), based on Latin genus ‘birth, family, nation’. The earliest meanings were ‘kind, sort, genus’ and ‘type or class of noun, etc.’ (which was also a sense of Latin genus )." "Sex" is more affiliated with physical traits Definition #2 at google " 2. either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions." Rr
Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 21:14:14 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
"Grammatical gender is only very loosely associated with natural distinctions of sex."
say the feminazis and their newspeak dictionaries
Google's definition
yeah right
Ok then... Webster: Definition of sex 1a : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures b : the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and females
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 21:24:09 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Ok then... Webster:
Definition of sex
1a : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures
b : the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and females
that's better. A few more datapoints : homo sexual - person attracted to persons of the same(homo) sex (not 'gender') same SEX marriage - oops the 'progressives' didn't get that one right... anti sex league - that one should be self explanatory https://www.grammar.com/gender/ "Gender is a grammatical concept, though most people today use gender when they mean sex." (that is most people are fucktards who parrot whatever garbage the feminazi 'progressives' tell them to parrot) "In other languages, various endings indicate whether a noun or pronoun is a masculine, feminine, or neuter entity. But in English, gender has pretty much disappeared from English nouns and adjectives. It remains only in the third-person singular of personal pronouns: he-him-his-his for the masculine, she-her-hers-hers for the feminine, and it-its-its for the neuter." in spanish vast majority of feminine nouns end in "a" while masculine nouns end in "o" - that's gender.
Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
most people today
HAHAHAHA! "Most people" believe the Russians are in their mama's closet. "Most people" believe the US is a democracy "Most people believe China and Russia are Communist Interviewer: "How did you come to write Candyman Blues?" Rev. Gary Davis: "I didn't write Candyman Blues. That came fo' (before) my time Interviewer: "But everyone says you wrote it." Rev Gary Davis.: "That just goes to show what everyone knows." Your reference is duly ignored Rr
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:59:05 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
most people today
HAHAHAHA!
"Most people" believe the Russians are in their mama's closet. "Most people" believe the US is a democracy "Most people believe China and Russia are Communist ... Rev Gary Davis.: "That just goes to show what everyone knows."
Your reference is duly ignored
but razer dear, you just provided four examples illustrating my point. People are clueless/parrot propaganda. Using the 'politically correct' term "gender" instead of 'sex" is just another instance of the same cluelessness. Thank you for your service =)
On December 19, 2019 11:23:09 AM PST, "Punk-Stasi 2.0" <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:59:05 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
most people today
HAHAHAHA!
"Most people" believe the Russians are in their mama's closet. "Most people" believe the US is a democracy "Most people believe China and Russia are Communist ... Rev Gary Davis.: "That just goes to show what everyone knows."
Your reference is duly ignored
but razer dear, you just provided four examples illustrating my point. People are clueless/parrot propaganda. Using the 'politically correct' term "gender" instead of 'sex" is just another instance of the same cluelessness. Thank you for your service =)
You're reaching and making shit up. My point was made and only in your delusional POV does it validate your belief . If you can't accept a dictionary definition you aren't worth discussing it with. You can EXPAND on a definition if you like (I do that occasionally), but it's extrapolation/interpolation, not a definition. Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:08:00 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On December 19, 2019 11:23:09 AM PST, "Punk-Stasi 2.0" <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:59:05 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
most people today
HAHAHAHA!
"Most people" believe the Russians are in their mama's closet. "Most people" believe the US is a democracy "Most people believe China and Russia are Communist ... Rev Gary Davis.: "That just goes to show what everyone knows."
Your reference is duly ignored
but razer dear, you just provided four examples illustrating my point. People are clueless/parrot propaganda. Using the 'politically correct' term "gender" instead of 'sex" is just another instance of the same cluelessness. Thank you for your service =)
You're reaching and making shit up. My point was made and only in your delusional POV
sorry, my mistake. I forgot for a second that you're just a US govt troll. On the other hand, people who are not agents like you, can easily see that the americunt feminazi term 'gender' and the belief that 'russian communists' are 'invading amerika' come from the very same americunt 'left wing' 'progressive' nutcases.
If you can't accept a dictionary definition
which one? I 'accepted' the webster one you posted. Not to mention, I can 'accept' ALL dictionary definitions older than 10 years, before your pentagon feminazi cunts redefined the term. but again, sorry, I don't mean to treat you as if you had a shred of intelectual honesty.
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 12:08:00PM -0800, Razer wrote:
On December 19, 2019 11:23:09 AM PST, "Punk-Stasi 2.0" <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:59:05 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
most people today
HAHAHAHA!
"Most people" believe the Russians are in their mama's closet. "Most people" believe the US is a democracy "Most people believe China and Russia are Communist ... Rev Gary Davis.: "That just goes to show what everyone knows."
Your reference is duly ignored
but razer dear, you just provided four examples illustrating my point. People are clueless/parrot propaganda. Using the 'politically correct' term "gender" instead of 'sex" is just another instance of the same cluelessness. Thank you for your service =)
You're reaching and making shit up. My point was made and only in your delusional POV does it validate your belief . If you can't accept a dictionary definition you aren't worth discussing it with. You can EXPAND on a definition if you like (I do that occasionally), but it's extrapolation/interpolation, not a definition.
I usually find another dictionary. Making one up is saved to when I run out of dictionaries. Oxford Pocket 1911 is not too bad...
Oxford Pocket 1911 is not too bad...
The Concise Oxford Dictionary Sixth Edition 1976 GENDER: n. Grammatical classification (or one of the classes) of objects roughly corresponding to the two sexes and sexlessness (see MASCULINE, FEMININE, NEUTER, COMMON); (of nouns and pronouns) property of belonging to such class, (of adjective) appropriate form for accompanying a noun of one such class; (joc.) one's sex. [and joc. means "jocular, used only in humorous of playful style"] Gender as a replacement for sex, is the modern ruling feminazi's imposition of a minority agenda (to dominate our thinking by changing our speech) upon the majority.
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 08:48:37 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Oxford Pocket 1911 is not too bad...
The Concise Oxford Dictionary Sixth Edition 1976
GENDER: n. Grammatical classification (or one of the classes) of objects roughly corresponding to the two sexes and sexlessness (see MASCULINE, FEMININE, NEUTER, COMMON); (of nouns and pronouns) property of belonging to such class, (of adjective) appropriate form for accompanying a noun of one such class; (joc.) one's sex.
[and joc. means "jocular, used only in humorous of playful style"]
yeah my "longman's dictionary of contemporary english" 1990 says the same thing. But it does have a second definition : "2. tech or euph : the division into male or female, sex" soooo - what does euphemism mean? mr longman again : "the use of a pleasanter, less direct name for something thought to be unpleasant". I can't recall if I've ever mentioned that feminazis are just a rebranded-recycled kind of jew-kristian puritan scum.
Gender as a replacement for sex, is the modern ruling feminazi's imposition of a minority agenda (to dominate our thinking by changing our speech) upon the majority.
1911. Bwahahahaha! That's it! Treat English as if it's a dead fucking language, Faggot. Unh hunh. You're dumb as a bundle of sticks ... in 1911 parlance, pissbrain. Rr
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:19:50 -0300 "Punk-Stasi 2.0" <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 21:14:14 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
"Grammatical gender is only very loosely associated with natural distinctions of sex."
say the feminazis and their newspeak dictionaries
but anyway, my comment is that using "gender" instead of "sex" when talking about SEXUALITY is idiotic newspeak. Because, again, the word "gender" is a technical term used in grammar that feminazis have now redefined to mean who knows what.
Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:19:50 -0300 "Punk-Stasi 2.0" <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 21:14:14 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
"Grammatical gender is only very loosely associated with natural distinctions of sex."
say the feminazis and their newspeak dictionaries
but anyway, my comment is that using "gender" instead of "sex" when talking about SEXUALITY is idiotic newspeak. Because, again, the word "gender" is a technical term used in grammar that feminazis have now redefined to mean who knows what.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/the-hearts-wisdom-what-does-sa...
On December 19, 2019 2:23:24 AM UTC, "Punk-Stasi 2.0" <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 17:21:13 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
anyway, there certainly are variations in sex and there may even
be a percentage of people who are hermaphrodites, but how big is it?
Small, but this isn't about that. It's about PSYCHOLOGY and EMOTIONS that make you feel more like a woman or man, and possibly following
up
by 'transforming'.
well I can see how there may be variations in sex. Sex being after all a biological phenomenom and nature being pretty complex.
on the other hand, if a more or less 'standard' male or female individual thinks he's of the wrong sex based only on 'psychological' grounds then I would tend to be not so impressed...
...but I can think of some 'psychological' explanations, too. For instance, male children abused by men-hating feminazi mothers may certainly be brainwashed and end up wanting to 'change their sex'. And that sort of abuse may certainly be common in western feminazi cesspools like the US and vasal states.
anyway, people are free to do whatever they want with their bodies. Just like I'm free to refer to manning as 'him'.
You are of course free to ignore Chelsea's desired pronoun... But why bother? Does not doing so seem to shake reality to the core? Of fucking course not. It's all about freedom, CM's freedom to be recognized by the world the way she sees herself. You can deny her that over a few inches of flesh, but to what end? It seems petty and pointlessly argumentative.
It means, lets say, I'm a wild in the streets anarchist but my
economics
are conservative. For instance I think a standing army that invades countries to bolster US consumer capitalism and the lifestyle is COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and economically the Pentagon is a waste of taxpayers dollars whse funds needs to be entirely redirected to assisting US citizens in their day to day life when needed, and also to MAKE FRIENDS, instead of enemies that cost us in WarBucks, by engaging in development projects that aren't driven by economic blackmail (IMF/WTO austerity etc) of Crapitalism.
well opposing an aberration like US imperialism is a basic requirement for anarchism - I don't see much of a contradiction there
Political thinking isn't black white and neither is gender,
no doubt a natural phenomenom like sex can have (wide) variations...
except for the mechanics (Dick/Puss etc) that represent just a part of what gender really means.
gender is a technical term used in grammar.
Rr
John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On December 19, 2019 2:23:24 AM UTC, "Punk-Stasi 2.0" <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
anyway, people are free to do whatever they want with their bodies. Just like I'm free to refer to manning as 'him'.
You are of course free to ignore Chelsea's desired pronoun... But why bother? Does not doing so seem to shake reality to the core? Of fucking course not.
I have a few good reasons. One : I'm not playing along with 'progressive' propaganda. In the US homosexuality was a 'crime' until a few years ago(maybe it still is?). Prostitution is a 'crime'. And sexual mutilation of male children is a High Virtue. The US has an insane, nazi 'registry for sex offenders'. And current political trends are highly totalitarian overall. And yet the same nazi governmetn now has a very 'progrssive' view on some controvertial issue? I call Bullshit.
It's all about freedom, CM's freedom to be recognized by the world the way she sees herself.
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four." Or in this case the freedom to say taht shemales are not women.
You can deny her that over a few inches of flesh, but to what end? It seems petty and pointlessly argumentative.
John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
It's all about freedom,
yeah freedom https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/transgender-pronouns-fine-nyc/ "a person who intentionally and repeatedly refuses to use an individual’s preferred pronoun would be subject to fines (that could reach as high as $250,000 for multiple violations) under the law"
On Saturday, December 21, 2019, 02:32:26 PM PST, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
It's all about freedom, yeah freedom
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/transgender-pronouns-fine-nyc/
> "a person who intentionally and repeatedly refuses to use an individual’s preferred pronoun would be subject to fines (that could reach as high as $250,000 for multiple violations) under the law" This sounds like an excellent opportunity to sue the city of New York (or whatever idiotic government jurisdiction that passed this outrageous rule) for obvious violations of freedom of speech. Jim Bell
On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 03:02:50AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
On Saturday, December 21, 2019, 02:32:26 PM PST, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
It's all about freedom, yeah freedom https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/transgender-pronouns-fine-nyc/
> "a person who intentionally and repeatedly refuses to use an individual’s preferred pronoun would be subject to fines (that could reach as high as $250,000 for multiple violations) under the law"
This sounds like an excellent opportunity to sue the city of New York (or whatever idiotic government jurisdiction that passed this outrageous rule) for obvious violations of freedom of speech.
Highlighting facts and the hypocrisy of "laws", is raw anti-semitism on display - you should be ashamed!
On December 21, 2019 10:33:22 PM UTC, "Punk-Stasi 2.0" <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
It's all about freedom,
yeah freedom
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/transgender-pronouns-fine-nyc/
"a person who intentionally and repeatedly refuses to use an individual’s preferred pronoun would be subject to fines (that could reach as high as $250,000 for multiple violations) under the law"
I think you probably know I didn't have this kind of fascist shit in mind when I argued for the simple civility of the issue.
John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
It's all about freedom,
and more freedom https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/09/05/trolling-malicious-communication-misge...
grarpamp wrote:
On 12/17/19, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
https://medium.com/@kevin_33184/chelsea-mannings-resistance-brings-u-s-close... 💝 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-excl... https://shadowproof.com/2019/12/10/opponent-paul-rosenzweig-wikileaks-vault-...
https://twitter.com/freejeremynet https://freejeremy.net/ https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/10/jeremy-hammond-issues-statement-explain... https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/10/imprisoned-activist-jeremy-hammond-foun...
Chelsea...
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6112339/Chelsea-Manning-s-Letter-... https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6112339/Chelsea-Manning-s-Letter-...
" 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-explain...
" 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 "
Manning, and he will to stand for our collective rights, is awesome - a credit to higher intentions and all that is good! Easily corruptible institutions ought be abolished. Institutions which actually serve the people, can be used for good. Institutions which have been corrupted, need to be either abolished or uncorrupted. Since those who wield such instutions against us, are corrupt and typically unwilling to relinquish their power which they wield against us, in this situation one solution is again to end the institution. The Grand Jury was meant as an institution of the people, to hold to account individuals within government, but of course it has been turned upside down and is now regularly (exclusively?) used by government, against the people. What we need is competent education of people, so they can wield power (including the grand jury) against corrupt government individuals. “The original grand jury was more than an investigator. They were supposed to protect citizens not just from unjust indictments but from unjust laws,” Manning suggested. “In England, grand jurors who even allowed a prosecutor to come into the grand jury room were seen as having violated their oath.” At least, the Grand Jury in the USA seems to be clearly problematic, and either needs to be fixed, or removed altogether, in the interests of our human rights. Great article BTW - thanks for posting! On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 08:16:33AM -0800, Razer wrote:
💝 Love you Chelsea! See you at the Barricades 🏴☠️
"When Judge Anthony Trenga ordered Chelsea Manning back to jail for refusing to testify before the grand jury investigating WikiLeaks, he urged her to “reflect on the principles she says she’s embracing” as well as “whether those views are worth the price she’s paying for them.” Trenga maintained there was “no dishonor” in cooperating with a grand jury because the United States Constitution codified the grand jury.
Manning took Trenga’s admonishment seriously and responded with a letter containing research she did with the help of her attorneys. It presented her position on the grand jury in a very clear and compelling manner.
In doing so, Manning further demonstrated her resistance is about much more than defying an investigation into a dissident media organization. It is about publicly discrediting the institution and all its corruption once and for all.
Manning, who is in jail at the William G. Truesdale Adult Detention Center in Alexandria, Virginia, was held in civil contempt of court on May 16. The federal court not only sent her back to jail but also imposed a fine of $500 per day after 30 days and a fine of $1000 per day after 60 days if she continues her resistance.
If Manning “persists in her refusal” for the next 16 months, according to her legal team, she will face a total amount of fines that is over $440,000. Both jail and fines may violate her Eighth Amendment rights under the Constitution, especially since these sanctions are supposed to be coercive, not punitive.
In her letter [PDF], Manning contended the modern grand jury barely resemble the grand jury, which the framers enshrined in the Constitution. She acknowledges much of her opposition comes from their use against activists but also makes it clear she believes the institution generally undermines due process for all citizens."
https://medium.com/@kevin_33184/chelsea-mannings-resistance-brings-u-s-close...
BTW, a little trivia: Up until about 10 years ago, we had grand juries still in Victoria, Australia. John Walsh (nearly murdered in jail with two billiard balls in a sock, for his $300 million island development which envious individuals wanted for themselves) successfully convened a grand jury against the very corrupt Victorian Crown Solicitor of the day, with abundant evidence of the corruption and attempted murder. The next business day after Walsh's successful grand jury filing in the supreme court, the Vicorian parliament removed the grand jury from the Victorian constitution (since they were not using it for themselves, and "we the people" had evidently begun to use it against them). (From memory, Mr Walsh lost his way and failed to file some of the documents he had to thereafter additionally file, and thus his grand jury case ultimately failed to proceed to trial.) So with a small (handful) dedicated group of people, it is possible to use such a tool as the grand jury to help clean up one or another corruption - but pick your battle carefully if you don't wanna be JFK'ed. Good luck and create your world, On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 08:55:52AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Manning, and he will to stand for our collective rights, is awesome - a credit to higher intentions and all that is good!
Easily corruptible institutions ought be abolished.
Institutions which actually serve the people, can be used for good.
Institutions which have been corrupted, need to be either abolished or uncorrupted. Since those who wield such instutions against us, are corrupt and typically unwilling to relinquish their power which they wield against us, in this situation one solution is again to end the institution.
The Grand Jury was meant as an institution of the people, to hold to account individuals within government, but of course it has been turned upside down and is now regularly (exclusively?) used by government, against the people.
What we need is competent education of people, so they can wield power (including the grand jury) against corrupt government individuals.
“The original grand jury was more than an investigator. They were supposed to protect citizens not just from unjust indictments but from unjust laws,” Manning suggested. “In England, grand jurors who even allowed a prosecutor to come into the grand jury room were seen as having violated their oath.”
At least, the Grand Jury in the USA seems to be clearly problematic, and either needs to be fixed, or removed altogether, in the interests of our human rights.
Great article BTW - thanks for posting!
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 08:16:33AM -0800, Razer wrote:
💝 Love you Chelsea! See you at the Barricades 🏴☠️
"When Judge Anthony Trenga ordered Chelsea Manning back to jail for refusing to testify before the grand jury investigating WikiLeaks, he urged her to “reflect on the principles she says she’s embracing” as well as “whether those views are worth the price she’s paying for them.” Trenga maintained there was “no dishonor” in cooperating with a grand jury because the United States Constitution codified the grand jury.
Manning took Trenga’s admonishment seriously and responded with a letter containing research she did with the help of her attorneys. It presented her position on the grand jury in a very clear and compelling manner.
In doing so, Manning further demonstrated her resistance is about much more than defying an investigation into a dissident media organization. It is about publicly discrediting the institution and all its corruption once and for all.
Manning, who is in jail at the William G. Truesdale Adult Detention Center in Alexandria, Virginia, was held in civil contempt of court on May 16. The federal court not only sent her back to jail but also imposed a fine of $500 per day after 30 days and a fine of $1000 per day after 60 days if she continues her resistance.
If Manning “persists in her refusal” for the next 16 months, according to her legal team, she will face a total amount of fines that is over $440,000. Both jail and fines may violate her Eighth Amendment rights under the Constitution, especially since these sanctions are supposed to be coercive, not punitive.
In her letter [PDF], Manning contended the modern grand jury barely resemble the grand jury, which the framers enshrined in the Constitution. She acknowledges much of her opposition comes from their use against activists but also makes it clear she believes the institution generally undermines due process for all citizens."
https://medium.com/@kevin_33184/chelsea-mannings-resistance-brings-u-s-close...
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 09:26:12AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 08:55:52AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Manning, and he will to stand for our collective rights, is awesome - s/he/her/doh!
Question: is ~8KiB of email headers appropriate, for an ~0.5KiB email? 1KiB emails seem to no longer exist on this list... And here we were worrying about shaving 1KiB off of high latency messages...
On Tuesday, December 17, 2019, 08:17:01 AM PST, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote: [snip]
In her letter [PDF], Chelsea Manning's Letter To Judge On Opposing The Grand Jury
Jim Bell's comment: That is a very well-written document. The U.S. Constitution has a flaw: (actually, many of them, but...) While the Fifth Amendment contains language protecting our right to not testify against ourselves, it fails to have a similar protection against being required to testify against others. Effectively, this means that we are slaves to those who want to prosecute others. There is a Federal law, Misprision of Felony: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4 "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." One key word is "conceals". Merely being aware of the commission of a felony does not require a person to report the crime. However, if you take an action to "conceal" it is called a violation of 18 U.S.C. 4. What actions amount to 'concealment' has been and is subject to litigation. I have not had access to a Lexis law library computer system since 2012. But, I am not aware that merely refusing to testify in front of a Grand Jury amounts to "misprision of felony". Also, I continue to search for discussions of ' "Assange" "extraterritoriality" ' . But NOT in the sense of the "extraterritoriality" of the Ecuadorian embassy in Longon: Rather, the issue of whether the U.S. Government can apply American law to a person, Assange, who ostensibly would have committed that crime while in the U.K., and not in America. Jim Bell
Manning contended the modern grand jury barely resemble the grand jury, which the framers enshrined in the Constitution. She acknowledges much of her opposition comes from their use against activists but also makes it clear she believes the institution generally undermines due process for all citizens."
Chelsea Manning’s Resistance Brings U.S. Closer To Ending The Grand Jury
----------------------------------The following, from my past research on the issue of Extraterritoriality and Assange: jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com>To:cypherpunks@lists.pglaf.org,Greg NewbyOct 21 at 11:51 AMOn Monday, October 21, 2019, 09:15:26 AM PDT, Greg Newby <gbnewby@pglaf.org> wrote:
Spotted in Fox news online, but it looks like this is also on the AP wire https://www.foxnews.com/world/wikileaks-julian-assange-appears-in-court
Meanwhile, it appears Chelsea Manning is still in jail in Alexandria, for refusing to cooperate with the grand jury investigation against Assange: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning
The Fox article:
WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US Greg Norman By Greg Norman | Fox News
Jim Bell's comment: (But first, note that the term "extraterritoriality" was commonly used in TWO senses in regards to Assange: First, perhaps the most common usage was the fact that Assange could stay in the Embassy as if it were a different country, not UK. That is NOT the sense I am most interested in, at least in part because nobody seemed to be substantially challenging that issue. The second usage, is the concept that a country can have criminal jurisdiction over acts committed in another nation. Put simply, can the US declare actions by a person outside the US, when there is no clear connection to the US? I very much doubt that, in this case. Below, you can see that I looked at some statutes, and did not find any specific reference to 'extraterritoriality' as part of the statutes which were then cited. This material includes points which included references to US court decisions which declared that unless a statute clearly claims 'extraterritoriality' over acts in other nations, it should be presumed to not apply. Did the US add any charges which DID have extraterritoriality references built into the statutes?) It's frustrating that these news-item references aren't written to include issues such as extraterritoriality included. I will now do a time limited Google-search for 'Assange extraterritoriality' over the last months to find useful references. Nothing. Perhaps a law journal will have addressed this important matter. Let's not forget what I said on April 29, 2019: -----------------------------------------------jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com>To:CypherPunks Apr 29 at 5:31 PM From: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download 15(B) to intentionally access a computer, without authorization and exceeding authorized access, to obtain information from a department and agency of the United States in furtherance of a criminal act in violation of the laws of the United States, that is, a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 641, 793(c), and 793(e). (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 1030(a)(l), 1030(a)(2), 1030(c)(2)(B)(ii).) [end of partial quote] There is a principle of American law, upheld by the Supreme Court, that a Federal law is only supposed to be considered of "extraterritorial" application (applies outside the boundaries of United States territory) if the Congress specifically intended that application, and was signified by including such language within the law itself.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction "In Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 2010, the Supreme Court held that in interpreting a statute, the "presumption against extraterritoriality" is absolute unless the text of the statute explicitly says otherwise." "https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2016/06/us-supreme-court-conti... http://www.virginialawreview.org/volumes/content/rjr-nabisco-and-runaway-can...
From that: "The Supreme Court threw out the lawsuit after invoking the presumption against extraterritoriality. That canon of statutory interpretation instructs judges to assume “that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”[8] In applying the presumption in RJR Nabisco, however, a majority of four Justices[9] rejected multiple indications that Congress intended RICO’s private right of action to extend abroad[10] while raising the bar on what Congress must do to make its extraterritorial expectations clear.[11]" [end of quote]
Understanding the presumption against extraterritoriality: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1170&context=bjil Very interesting: https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2019/04/some-thoughts-on-the-extradition-of...
From that:"THE RULE OF DUAL CRIMINALITY: Even if extradition is sought only under the computer intrusion indictment, it will still need to meet the test of dual criminality, found in Article 2, which provides that "An offense shall be an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in both States." Although computer hacking is no doubt also a crime in the U.K., there is a further wrinkle of territoriality, because Assange's alleged offense was committed outside the United States. Another section of Article 2 provides:If the offense has been committed outside the territory of the Requesting State, extradition shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty if the laws in the Requested State provide for the punishment of such conduct committed outside its territory in similar circumstances. If the laws in the Requested State do not provide for the punishment of such conduct committed outside of its territory in similar circumstances, the executive authority of the Requested State, in its discretion, may grant extradition provided that all other requirements of this Treaty are met." Unlike the U.S., however, Britain apparently takes a strict view of territorial jurisdiction. According to The New York Times, Britain has already denied a U.S. extradition request for computer intrusion, on the grounds that the offense was committed on British soil and would therefore have to be tried in the U.K. [end of quote]
18 U.S.C. 641 does not appear to explicitly have an extraterritoriality reference. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641 18 U.S.C. 793(c), nor the whole 793, does not appear to explicitly have an extraterritoriality reference. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 18 U.S.C. 371 does not appear to explicitly have an extraterritoriality reference. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 18 U.S.C. 1030 does not appear to explicitly have an extraterritoriality reference. 18 U.S. Code § 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers Jim Bell
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 09:59:19PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2019, 08:17:01 AM PST, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
[snip]
In her letter [PDF], Chelsea Manning's Letter To Judge On Opposing The Grand Jury
Jim Bell's comment: That is a very well-written document. The U.S. Constitution has a flaw: (actually, many of them, but...) While the Fifth Amendment contains language protecting our right to not testify against ourselves, it fails to have a similar protection against being required to testify against others. Effectively, this means that we are slaves to those who want to prosecute others.
That's a useful, and insightful way to put it - thank you. I would also add this: Fundamental human rights are fundamental (or inalienable or unalienable in USA traditional terms), since they are rights that are with us from they day we're born (so to speak) - that is, due to our natural ability, we have sanction to exercise the right to remain silent, or the right to speak, or the right to move about, without the "permission" or "license" from anyone else. Now, those who wish to exercise power over others, such as the power to prosecute others, even for actions where there are no victims (such as publishing information), may bring down upon us, consequences for exercising our basic human rights (such as the right to remain silent, or the right to speak, etc). Another way to put it is that to some degree our bodies may be "slaves" to those who exercise arbitrary and capricious power over our bodies, but our spirit or Soul remains free, and within the bounds of our ability (to speak, to remain silent, to move), we remain free. It can of course be useful to codify such things that seem obvious to some, in the hope that the many might be more inclined to live their fundamental/basic human rights in the face of the tyranny that TPTB bring upon us. Although the negative to codifying basic human rights, is that in the mind of the feeble, our basic human rights then become defined by that which is written (and not by our inherent ability/capacity and natural or God given rights), and further, the writing also invites gaming by sociopaths. Without the writing (say, a "constitution" and/ or "constitutional amendments"), then juries (plain or grand juries) must exercise much more discrimination. With such writing/codifying of rights, these juries are often "directed" by the judge to "decide ONLY on these points I tell you to decide on" and "you MUST decide in the following way, since The Law says those actions are illegal" and other monstrosities. Again, those humans on a jury ALWAYS have the right to decide ANY WHICH WAY they so choose, but how many know this? And more importantly, how many are willing to act/speak based on principles of righteousness and decency, in the face of a "corrupt" judge ordering them to decide in a certain way only?
There is a Federal law, Misprision of Felony: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4 "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."
It appears that this law should be used against many CIA and FBI "deep croc" employees!
One key word is "conceals". Merely being aware of the commission of a felony does not require a person to report the crime. However, if you take an action to "conceal" it is called a violation of 18 U.S.C. 4. What actions amount to 'concealment' has been and is subject to litigation. I have not had access to a Lexis law library computer system since 2012. But, I am not aware that merely refusing to testify in front of a Grand Jury amounts to "misprision of felony". Also, I continue to search for discussions of ' "Assange" "extraterritoriality" ' . But NOT in the sense of the "extraterritoriality" of the Ecuadorian embassy in Longon: Rather, the issue of whether the U.S. Government can apply American law to a person, Assange, who ostensibly would have committed that crime while in the U.K., and not in America. Jim Bell
Manning contended the modern grand jury barely resemble the grand jury, which the framers enshrined in the Constitution. She acknowledges much of her opposition comes from their use against activists but also makes it clear she believes the institution generally undermines due process for all citizens."
Chelsea Manning’s Resistance Brings U.S. Closer To Ending The Grand Jury
----------------------------------The following, from my past research on the issue of Extraterritoriality and Assange:
jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com>To:cypherpunks@lists.pglaf.org,Greg NewbyOct 21 at 11:51 AMOn Monday, October 21, 2019, 09:15:26 AM PDT, Greg Newby <gbnewby@pglaf.org> wrote:
Spotted in Fox news online, but it looks like this is also on the AP wire https://www.foxnews.com/world/wikileaks-julian-assange-appears-in-court
Meanwhile, it appears Chelsea Manning is still in jail in Alexandria, for refusing to cooperate with the grand jury investigation against Assange: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning
The Fox article:
WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US Greg Norman By Greg Norman | Fox News
Jim Bell's comment: (But first, note that the term "extraterritoriality" was commonly used in TWO senses in regards to Assange: First, perhaps the most common usage was the fact that Assange could stay in the Embassy as if it were a different country, not UK. That is NOT the sense I am most interested in, at least in part because nobody seemed to be substantially challenging that issue. The second usage, is the concept that a country can have criminal jurisdiction over acts committed in another nation. Put simply, can the US declare actions by a person outside the US, when there is no clear connection to the US? I very much doubt that, in this case. Below, you can see that I looked at some statutes, and did not find any specific reference to 'extraterritoriality' as part of the statutes which were then cited. This material includes points which included references to US court decisions which declared that unless a statute clearly claims 'extraterritoriality' over acts in other nations, it should be presumed to not apply. Did the US add any charges which DID have extraterritoriality references built into the statutes?)
It's frustrating that these news-item references aren't written to include issues such as extraterritoriality included. I will now do a time limited Google-search for 'Assange extraterritoriality' over the last months to find useful references. Nothing. Perhaps a law journal will have addressed this important matter. Let's not forget what I said on April 29, 2019:
-----------------------------------------------jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com>To:CypherPunks Apr 29 at 5:31 PM From: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download 15(B) to intentionally access a computer, without authorization and exceeding authorized access, to obtain information from a department and agency of the United States in furtherance of a criminal act in violation of the laws of the United States, that is, a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 641, 793(c), and 793(e). (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 1030(a)(l), 1030(a)(2), 1030(c)(2)(B)(ii).)
[end of partial quote] There is a principle of American law, upheld by the Supreme Court, that a Federal law is only supposed to be considered of "extraterritorial" application (applies outside the boundaries of United States territory) if the Congress specifically intended that application, and was signified by including such language within the law itself.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction
"In Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 2010, the Supreme Court held that in interpreting a statute, the "presumption against extraterritoriality" is absolute unless the text of the statute explicitly says otherwise."
"https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2016/06/us-supreme-court-conti...
http://www.virginialawreview.org/volumes/content/rjr-nabisco-and-runaway-can...
From that: "The Supreme Court threw out the lawsuit after invoking the presumption against extraterritoriality. That canon of statutory interpretation instructs judges to assume “that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”[8] In applying the presumption in RJR Nabisco, however, a majority of four Justices[9] rejected multiple indications that Congress intended RICO’s private right of action to extend abroad[10] while raising the bar on what Congress must do to make its extraterritorial expectations clear.[11]" [end of quote]
Understanding the presumption against extraterritoriality: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1170&context=bjil
Very interesting: https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2019/04/some-thoughts-on-the-extradition-of...
From that:"THE RULE OF DUAL CRIMINALITY: Even if extradition is sought only under the computer intrusion indictment, it will still need to meet the test of dual criminality, found in Article 2, which provides that "An offense shall be an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in both States." Although computer hacking is no doubt also a crime in the U.K., there is a further wrinkle of territoriality, because Assange's alleged offense was committed outside the United States. Another section of Article 2 provides:If the offense has been committed outside the territory of the Requesting State, extradition shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty if the laws in the Requested State provide for the punishment of such conduct committed outside its territory in similar circumstances. If the laws in the Requested State do not provide for the punishment of such conduct committed outside of its territory in similar circumstances, the executive authority of the Requested State, in its discretion, may grant extradition provided that all other requirements of this Treaty are met." Unlike the U.S., however, Britain apparently takes a strict view of territorial jurisdiction. According to The New York Times, Britain has already denied a U.S. extradition request for computer intrusion, on the grounds that the offense was committed on British soil and would therefore have to be tried in the U.K. [end of quote]
18 U.S.C. 641 does not appear to explicitly have an extraterritoriality reference. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641
18 U.S.C. 793(c), nor the whole 793, does not appear to explicitly have an extraterritoriality reference. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
18 U.S.C. 371 does not appear to explicitly have an extraterritoriality reference. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371
18 U.S.C. 1030 does not appear to explicitly have an extraterritoriality reference. 18 U.S. Code § 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
Jim Bell
On 12/17/19, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Another way to put it is that to some degree our bodies may be "slaves" to those who exercise arbitrary and capricious power over our bodies, but our spirit or Soul remains free, and within the bounds of our ability (to speak, to remain silent, to move), we remain free.
On 12/17/19, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
we are slaves to those who want to prosecute others. There is a Federal law, Misprision of Felony: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4 "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."
https://qwant.com/?q=jury+nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification http://www.fija.org/ http://www.jurybox.org/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_Nullification_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Rule_Book Find books on the web, filesharing, libgen, etc... Consider how natural law rights to jury nullification, and to in general voluntarily not involve oneself in anything, would apply to cancel the paper misprision "offense" directly, and or by removing the underlying felony requirement.
One key word is "conceals". Merely being aware of the commission of a felony does not require a person to report the crime.
"conceals *and* doesn't inform asap" This seems a strange conjunction... it either implies a required context of such actions as being taken in response to an inquest or proceeding (the cognizable bits), or it is simply an example of broken "law" easily thrown out. Then there is defining "asap", such as falling under which parties own priority scheduler... deft or pltf.
I have not had access to a Lexis law library computer system since 2012.
Isn't that available onsite to guests through random public libraries, or university law school libraries? Nevermind that the worldwide legal system needs opensourced at all levels, including this bullshit cabal... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_(law)
I am not aware that merely refusing to testify in front of a Grand Jury amounts to "misprision of felony".
If so, surely not for any lack of prosecutors trying to attempt such twists.
participants (8)
-
\0xDynamite -
grarpamp -
jim bell -
John Newman -
Mirimir -
Punk-Stasi 2.0 -
Razer -
Zenaan Harkness