43 votes

Third anarchist jailed for refusing to testify before secret grand jury *updated*

A third self-described anarchist from the Pacific Northwest has been jailed by federal officials for refusing to speak before a secretive grand jury that the accused have called a politically-motivated modern-day witch-hunt.

Leah-Lynn Plante, a mid-20s activist from Seattle, Washington, was ushered out of court by authorities on Wednesday after refusing for a third time to answer questions forced on her by a grand jury — a panel of prosecutors convened to determine if an indictment can be issued for a federal crime.

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

http://rt.com/usa/news/refusing-grand-jury-plante-196/

http://leahxvx.tumblr.com/post/33298924637




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I've always wondered how

I've always wondered how Masons handle this issue.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

Cute. Send in the provocs, pillory the activists

We know a lot of this "Black Bloc" crap is just that, crap staged by agent provocateurs working for PD or any number of state/federal agencies.

So go out, do some crimes, round up the real dissidents, force them to turn on each other or go to jail.

Some comments below seem to blow this off cause she's a leftists. Well here they are coming for the leftists. Choose your follow up below:

1. And I said nothing because I am not a leftist.

2. And I spoke out knowing that I would be next if I didn't.

3. Good, stupid leftist got what was coming to her and I hope her leftist butt rots in jail forever.

Get your preps together! Learn historic food storage and preservation methods and the science that makes them work now, start saving money and the future

They have done this before

Calling politically active witnesses to testify before federal grand juries was SOP in the 50's (communist ) and the 60's anti-war movement. Part of COINTELPRO

Thetis

Posted the previous day under War & Peace

Posted the previous day under War & Peace

http://www.dailypaul.com/258649/third-anarchist-jailed-for-r...

A couple of comments about Grand Juries by Thomas Jefferson

"A grand juror cannot carry on systematic persecution against a neighbor whom he hates, because he is not permanent in the office. The judges generally, by a charge, instruct the grand jurors in the infractions of law which are to be noticed by them; and our judges are in the habit of printing their charges in the newspapers." --Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Randolph, 1793. ME 9:83

"[If] the charges of the Federal judges... [invite] the grand juries to become inquisitors on the freedom of speech, of writing and of principle of their fellow citizens, perhaps the grand juries... may think it incumbent in their next presentment to enter protestations against this perversion of their institution from a legal to a political machine and even to present those concerned in it." --Thomas Jefferson to Peregrine Fitzhugh, 1797. (*) FE 7:137

Memories can fail

If I were in that situation, I would respond to all questions by saying: "I do not recall."

Yep...

...and you can always plead to the 5th too. That she's refusing to answer questions at all tells either she's pretty dense, or (more likely) she's trying to make a political statement.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Nope. . .

She was granted immunity. If she doesn't testify, it's contempt of court. Which puts her in a difficult position if the court actually IS contemptible.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

I'm curious: Did she receive

I'm curious: Did she receive "use and derivative use" immunity (they can't use HER testimony, or evidence it led to, against her, but if they find evidence from some other source, too bad) or transactional immunity (all previous wrongdoing related to the subject matter is forgiven)?

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

I don't know.

She refused to testify on Aug. 2nd (presumably on 5th Amendment grounds) then was called back on Sept. 13th, when she says she was "granted immunity," but still refused to testify. She doesn't say which type of immunity she was given.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

That doesn't make any sense...

...I've never heard of anyone being forced to accept immunity. And forcing her to accept immunity doesn't force her to testify anyway, even if she can't plead to the 5th, she can still say "I do not recall."

This is just my speculation, but it sounds like she made a deal to testify against her compatriots in exchange for immunity, and has now backed out of that deal for some reason, and is remaining silent to avoid perjuring herself, having previously given a statement to the DA.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

They do it all the time. But

They do it all the time. But you don't hear about it on TV shows or in school (unless it's a law school).

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

"I do not recall" worked for

"I do not recall" worked for Reagan and Bush pretty well!

Or, "Yes, I saw who did it, he has an average guy, about average height and weight, but I didn't get a good look at his face!" Any more questions?

It's not my story -- it's hers.

Read her blog. That's what she says, down in the second paragraph:

I returned to the Grand Jury on September 13th where I was granted immunity. When you are granted immunity, you lose your right to remain silent and can be thrown into prison for civil contempt.

I don't know personally, but I have heard, that this use of "immunity" is a common practice. Investigations like this are "fishing expeditions," and grants of immunity are "bait." As soon as someone pleads the 5th Amendment, the prosecutor offers them full or conditional immunity, in order to compel testimony he can use to prosecute other members of the group. The use of the 5th Amendment is like a red flag, telling the inquisitors that they've caught someone who's guilty of something -- and who therefore CAN spill the beans about her co-conspirators. Granted immunity = bean can-opener.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

I understand what you're saying...

...but the question remains: why can't she just say "I do not recall"? They can't hold her in contempt for that. So the only reasons I can think of for why she might remain silent rather than say "I do not recall" is that either (a) she wants to be held in contempt to make a political statement, or (b) she already made a sworn statement to the DA and would be committing perjure if she claimed not to remember, and being held for contempt is better than being indicted for perjury.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

She should have done that, but

it's kinda late to try it now. Once you've pleaded the Fifth Amendment, it's hard to suddenly claim not to remember what you did that caused you to plead the Fifth, isn't it? At this late date, claiming not to remember looks like willful perjury -- expect the judge to rule that way.

The girl should have taken lessons from Slick & Hillary Clinton -- whenever they had to testify, their memories were purely terrible -- and they never used the Fifth Amendment. This girl evidently thought that the Constitution would protect her rights better than an outright lie. Next time she'll know better.

Honest and honorable people are at a terrific disadvantage in our justice (sic) system -- honesty puts them at the mercy of dishonest prosecutors, and trusting the Constitution to safeguard their rights puts them at the mercy of courts that dishonor it.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Ah...

...I didn't realize she had already plead to the 5th.

Yes, tough spot.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

What am I missing?

Firstly, she sounds like a left-anarchist, not someone for whom I have any sympathy at the level of political ideology.

Secondly, it sounds like the police and the DA are going through the proper channels: search warrants, grand jury, etc. I don't see how her rights are being violated. Now, maybe she is innocent and this is a witch-hunt, but that's what trials are for, eh?

And grand juries are always somewhat "secretive," in that they aren't open to the public, and the accused is not necessarily invited to participate.

http://ujsjurors.sd.gov/grand.html

The grand jury may call witnesses, require sworn testimony, and demand that records and other evidence be produced in addition to whatever evidence or information is provided by the state's attorney. The grand jury may call on either the state's attorney or the judge to seek advice concerning law and legal procedure.

Because grand jury proceedings are not open to public, the only person permitted to attend its sessions is a witness called to testify. Even the state's attorney and judge may not be present while the grand jury is discussing or voting on a case.

After its investigation, the grand jury can return an indictment (a statement charging that a crime has been committed) or determine that no crime has been committed. Under an indictment, the defendant is brought before a circuit judge for arraignment and trial.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

The day willl come

When the feds will simply say that someone you are affiliated with did something, and if you don't talk, off you go, no judge no trial.

Then you won't care who is left or right or whatever.

TwelveOhOne's picture

War decides

Your comment reminds me of the old quote, "war doesn't decide who is right -- only who is left."

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

Well, until that day...

...I'll evaluate each case individually, and decide for myself whether the the accused is being treated unjustly, and whether I sympathize with his/her political opinions. In this case, my answers are "no, she's not being treated unjustly" and "no, I have no sympathy whatsoever for her political opinions," resp.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Grand jurries are a joke

Grand juries are not meant to get at the truth and invoke justice, they are vehicles for political hacks to advance their agendas. A functioning grand jury would be comprised of nothing but non-attorneys and from that group a foreman would be selected and he/she would be offered legal guidance and advice but the show would be run 100% by the juries, not over-zealous prosecutors or US attorneys etc.

Like any institution...

...a grand jury can be corrupted, sure. But I'd rather have a system which includes juries than a system which does not, all else being equal. And anyway, my main point was simply that this girl is not, as far as I can tell, being treated especially unfairly. It's not like they detained her without trial, or shipped her off to some Egyptian prison to be "interrogated." She's experiencing the legal system in its usual operation. And also, it sounds like she's being investigated for actual crimes: i.e. destruction of property.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Search warrants for "anti

Search warrants for "anti government literature"? Property crimes?

Besides, we are talking about the FBI here. Sending 80 agents after this girl and her boyfriend. On my tax dime.

Seriously, if whomever windows she supposedly broke is so pissed off at her, they really ought to fund that particular posse on their own.

One of, perhaps the only, definitely the biggest, blind spots so called "right" anarchists / libertarians whatnot seem to suffer from, is the blind faith that it is good and proper for government to "protect private property." As if that is some nuance less statement. While having a government that goes some ways towards maintaining order is probably a good thing, robbing each and every citizen of their last penny, to be maximally sure that not one single child is ever able to steal one pack of gum, is completely counterproductive. As is spending a few million of other people's money, on these attention seekers.

On top of that, idiocy like this gives the thugs getting well paid to play this game more excuses to drum up ever more reasons why they are "needed."

Back in the civilized era, if someone slighted you badly enough, you'd ride into town and see if you could round up a posse that sympathized with you. Or was willing to ride with you for pay. Were that still the case, don't you think the window owner who is supposedly getting restitution by this idiotic witch hunt, would be better served protecting his precious windows a little better? But hey, as long as I'm the one having to fund the raid though my taxes; he's probably thinking, why not? It ain't my millions.

There has been a tremendous "creep"

over the last 20-25 years - wherein offenses that were once state
misdemeanors have somehow morphed into federal "terrorism" crimes.

Talk about dumbing down - if you shoot up a stop sign because
you just want to blow the crap out of something it's probably a
misdemeanor under state jurisdiction. If you do the same thing
because you had some sort of political agenda you could have
the Federales coming down on you as a domestic terrorist...

It's pretty ironic that something like breaking a window may be
a huge federal deal based mainly on whether there was any
political intent behind it. This is not new, I'm pretty sure it dates
from the Clinton administration - they pushed the security
state envelope as much as they could.

(They never could manage something on the level of the Patriot Act,
but they did shove through a couple big "terrorism" bills in the wake
of the Oklahoma City bombing and the 1996 TWA 800 crash off Long Island)

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/twa.php

"Property crimes?"

Yes, property crimes.

"if whomever windows she supposedly broke is so pissed off at her, they really ought to fund that particular posse on their own."

Yea, I agree, but how does that somehow absolve Leah, or win her sympathy?

"On my tax dime."

Right, your sympathies should be for the tax payer footing the bill, not for this idiot utopian socialist vandal.

"One of, perhaps the only, definitely the biggest, blind spots so called "right" anarchists / libertarians whatnot seem to suffer from, is the blind faith that it is good and proper for government to "protect private property." As if that is some nuance less statement. While having a government that goes some ways towards maintaining order is probably a good thing, robbing each and every citizen of their last penny, to be maximally sure that not one single child is ever able to steal one pack of gum, is completely counterproductive. As is spending a few million of other people's money, on these attention seekers."

Yes, those are valid criticism of the state monopoly on adjudication and policing. But, again, that in no way absolves this barbarian named Leah.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Who cares about Leah per se.

Who cares about Leah per se. She isn't really all that big a deal. A government that spends untold sums harassing someone like her; heck a government capable of putting together the kind of detail they brought in to confiscate her "anti government literature" and "black clothes" is the problem. To the extent she helped bring to the fore that facet of government, she did a good thing. Even if breaking windows in isolation is not.

Besides, being a probably non-taxpaying squatter, she must by now have cost government more than they manage to squeeze out of her. Which is something like the first rule of being a non contributor: Make oppressing you a losing proposition for the oppressors. If everyone managed to do that, the scum would simply run out of money.

Why do I suspect...

that what people like you fear most is exactly what I should support?

I look for where the flak is to see where the most important target it, and people who are not afraid to shut their mouths really scare your bosses.

You do know your post only strengthened my resolve to be against whatever you are for.

I don't know what you're trying to say here...

...other than that you dislike me personally for some reason.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

If she's a genuine anarchist,

If she's a genuine anarchist, whether she is right or left, (right or wrong :) ) doesn't really matter in practice.

Many left anarchists do seem to have some weird notion that if only corrupt governments disappeared, everyone is really, really, deep down, a socialist; and economics doesn't really apply to those who don't understand it.

But, as long they want to get rid of all government; who cares? Those who are less left, or is that less wrong, just have to remember to arm up sufficiently. So that, by the time the left leaning figures out that economics is a basic science, and inevitably give up on anarchism for totalitarianism, any wannabe totalitarian and his supporters, can be summarily disposed of.