CHELSEA’S GRAND JURY CASES: STATEMENTS & LEGAL DOCUMENTS

Imatge
Àmbits Temàtics
herstory
Hackers

Execu­tive Summary of Chel­sea Manning’s “Grum­bles” Motion.

A “Grum­bles” motion is actu­ally a “Memo­ran­dum of Law in Support of Motion to Rele­ase”  (It’s called a “Grum­bles” motion because the first people to argue it were Don and Patri­cia Grum­bles.)

But what does it really explain and why is the case law it contains so impor­tant in Chel­se­a’s case?

Read the Execu­tive Summary by Kelly Wright to find out. :-)

Excerpts from the Execu­tive Summary:

If there is no coer­cive effect to their confi­ne­ment, either because the grand jury has ended, or because there is no possi­ble way they will be convin­ced to comply with the order to testify, then the confi­ne­ment must be deemed puni­tive, and must end…

Simkin v. US, esta­blis­hes that incar­ce­ra­ted witnes­ses must be freed from confi­ne­ment if condi­ti­ons arise that makes purging their contempt impos­si­ble. This would include not only the conclu­sion of the grand jury inves­ti­ga­tion, but cases in which the witness can demons­trate that their convic­ti­ons make them “non-coer­ci­ble.”…

To deter­mine whet­her a witness is inco­er­ci­ble, judges review evidence of their charac­ter and beli­efs, and if the judge is convin­ced that the confi­ne­ment has no coer­cive effect, then it has, by defi­ni­tion, exce­e­ded its lawful scope. Such a judg­ment would require the witness’ imme­di­ate rele­a­se…

Some of the factors that may go into making an “indi­vi­du­a­li­zed deter­mi­na­tion” as to the intran­si­gence of the witness are:

  1. the length of confi­ne­ment

  2. the witness’ connec­tion to what is being inves­ti­ga­ted

  3. the basis for refu­sal

  4. the presu­med need for the witness’ unique testi­mony

  5. the witness’ commu­nity support

  6. the witness’ conduct and deme­a­nor.

     

    Read the whole Execu­tive Summary here.

GRUM­BLES MOTI­ONSKELLY WRIGHT

CHEL­SEA MANNING, FIRST AMEND­MENT, FREE­DOM OF THE PRESS

CHEL­SE­A’S GRAND JURY CASES: STATE­MENTS & LEGAL DOCU­MENTS

AUGUST 7, 2019 LISA

Index of Mate­ri­als re: Chel­se­a’s Resis­tance to Two Grand Jury Subpo­e­nas

Upda­ted August 7, 2019

August 7, 2019: Judge Says Chel­sea Manning Can Pay Fines, Despite Evidence to the Contrary

Read the  Letter from Chel­sea Manning to Judge Anthony Trenga, where Chel­sea explains the history of grand juries, after reflec­ting long and hard on the reasons for her resis­tance, at the request of Judge Anthony Trenga  (origi­nal in PDF)

To keep up with deve­lop­ments, please follow the Chel­sea Resists Twit­ter feed here.      Donate to her Legal Fund here.

Upda­ted Index:

Soli­tary Confi­ne­ment State­ment From Chel­se­a’s Support Commit­tee – March 23, 2019

Chel­sea is being held in soli­tary confi­ne­ment. See the defi­ni­tion of soli­tary confi­ne­ment compa­red to the jail’s own defi­ni­tion of the “Admi­nis­tra­tive Segre­ga­tion” condi­ti­ons under which Chel­sea is being held:

Chel­se­a’s state­ment March 8th (from her Twit­ter account):

Chel­sea E. Manning✔@xychel­sea

 

** Chel­sea was taken into custody today for resis­ting a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virgi­nia



Chel­sea provi­ded the follo­wing state­ment:

View image on Twitter

13.2K

8:58 PM – Mar 8, 2019

Twit­ter Ads info and privacy

6,986 people are talking about this

 

“I will not comply with this, or any other grand jury. Impri­so­ning me for my refu­sal to answer ques­ti­ons only subjects me to addi­ti­o­nal punish­ment for my repe­a­tedly-stated ethi­cal objec­ti­ons to the grand jury system.

The grand jury’s ques­ti­ons pertai­ned to disclo­su­res from nine years ago, and took place six years after and in-depth compu­ter foren­sics case, in which I testi­fied for almost a full day about these events. I stand by my previ­ous public testi­mony.

I will not parti­ci­pate in a secret process that I morally object to, parti­cu­larly one that has been histo­ri­cally used to entrap and perse­cute acti­vists for protec­ted poli­ti­cal speech.”

Daniel Ells­berg’s State­ment of Support

From the Free­dom of the Press Foun­da­tion website:

“Chel­sea Manning is again acting heroi­cally in the name of press free­dom, and it’s a travesty that she has been sent back to jail for refu­sing to testify to a grand jury. An inves­ti­ga­tion into Wiki­Le­aks for publis­hing is a grave threat to all jour­na­lists’ rights, and Chel­sea is doing us all a service for figh­ting it. She has alre­ady been tortu­red, spent years in jail, and has suffe­red more than enough. She should be rele­a­sed imme­di­a­tely.”

Chel­se­a’s Legal Defense Fund here:

Chel­sea Resists Legal Defense Fund:https://acti­on­net­work.org/fundrai­sing/chel­sea-manning-needs-legal-funds-to-resist-a-grand-jury-subpo­ena

Address for writing Chel­sea in Jail:

Chel­sea Eliza­beth Manning

A0181426

William G. Trues­dale Adult Deten­tion Center

2001 Mill Road

Alexan­dria, VA 22314

Dos and Don’ts for Writing Chel­sea in Jail (IMPOR­TANT)

State­ment from Chel­sea Manning Regar­ding Grand Jury and Conse­quen­ces Asso­ci­a­ted with Her Refu­sal – March 7, 2019:

 

 

“Yester­day, I appe­a­red before a secret grand jury after being given immu­nity for my testi­mony. All of the subs­tan­tive ques­ti­ons pertai­ned to my disclo­su­res of infor­ma­tion to the public in 2010—ans­wers I provi­ded in exten­sive testi­mony, during my court-martial in 2013. I respon­ded to each ques­tion with the follo­wing state­ment: ‘I object to the ques­tion and refuse to answer on the grounds that the ques­tion is in viola­tion of my First, Fourth, and Sixth Amend­ment, and other statu­tory rights.’

“In soli­da­rity with many acti­vists facing the odds, I will stand by my prin­ci­ples. I will exhaust every legal remedy avai­la­ble. My legal team conti­nues to challenge the secrecy of these proce­e­dings, and I am prepa­red to face the conse­quen­ces of my refu­sal.”

Past State­ments by Chel­sea & her legal and suport team:

Refe­ren­ces: (work in progress – will keep adding to this)

1. Why Chel­sea Manning Deci­ded to Go to Jail in Protest, March 8, 2019, by Dell Came­ron for Gizmodo https://gizmodo.com/why-chel­sea-manning-deci­ded-to-go-to-jail-in-protest-1833164311

“Manning, whose right to remain silent was supplan­ted as part of the grand jury process, was subpo­e­naed last month in the U.S. Justice Depart­ment’s not-so-sealed inves­ti­ga­tion into Julian Assange. Her defi­ance of this secret inqui­si­tion, howe­ver, is not about protec­ting the Wiki­Le­aks foun­der at all.

Manning says she is resis­ting because she, like many other poli­ti­cally minded Ameri­cans, beli­e­ves grand juries are an ille­gal instru­ment desig­ned to aide prose­cu­tors on fishing expe­di­ti­ons; a tool for strip­ping witnes­ses of their cons­ti­tu­ti­o­nal rights that has been histo­ri­cally used against peace­ful poli­ti­cal acti­vists by men in power who would have them labe­lled “terro­rists” and “enemies of the state…”

“Manning’s asso­ci­a­tion with Wiki­Le­aks nearly a decade ago was dissec­ted in exhaus­tive detail during her 2013 court-martial, in which all manner of evidence about her brief contact with Wiki­Le­aks, inclu­ding the trans­cripts of their conver­sa­ti­ons, was presen­ted. But now she is meant to regur­gi­tate that story based on her own flawed memo­ries while under the threat of prolon­ged incar­ce­ra­tion if she finds any reason to refuse.

“We hope she chan­ges her mind now, ” the prose­cu­tor, Tracy McCor­mick, told the Asso­ci­a­ted Press.

Although Manning is cons­ti­tu­ti­o­nally protec­ted from double jeopardy—­from being char­ged twice for the same crime—­her poli­ti­cal right to silence has effec­ti­vely been strip­ped away…”

2. Chel­sea Manning Fights Subpo­ena — Showing How Fede­ral Grand Juries Are Unac­coun­ta­ble Tools of Repres­sion – By Natasha Lennard, March 2 2019 https://thein­ter­cept.com/2019/03/02/chel­sea-manning-subpo­ena-grand-jury/

“Manning’s deci­sion to fight her subpo­ena is an act of resis­tance against govern­ment repres­sion and in defense of a free press.”

 

3. Chel­sea Manning’s Lawyers Say No Formal Accu­sa­tion She Gave False State­ments During Court Martial (By Dell Came­ron For Gizmodo)

4. Court Unse­als Docu­ments Regar­ding Chel­sea Manning Subpo­ena (Docu­ments are avai­la­ble via Lawfa­re­blog)

5. The 4th Circuit Court of Appe­als denied Chel­se­a’s Appeal & Bail Motion last Monday, April 22. Here are state­ments from Chel­sea and her team: https://www.spar­row­me­dia.net/2019/04/chel­sea-manning-and-her-attor­neys-respond-to-4th-circuit-court-of-appe­als-ruling-affir­ming-contempt-and-conti­nuing-her-deten­tion/

6. Chel­sea has been let out of her soli­tary confi­ne­ment condi­ti­ons (Admi­nis­tra­tive Segre­ga­tion), the defi­ni­tion of which, is nearly iden­ti­cal to the UN Special Rappor­teur on tortu­re’s defi­ni­tion of soli­tary confi­ne­ment.

 

Darreres entrades

Les dades de l'aplicació de seguiment menstrual és una 'mina d'or' per als anunciants que arrisca la seguretat de les dones - informe
Ja està la web de l'F-Droid taduïda al català i al basc
DonesTech: Jornada de Dinamització de la Internet Social 2025 de la Xarxa Punt TIC
KeePassDX - Gestor de contrasenyes FOSS
El núvol no és un núvol: és una nau! La petjada ambiental de la IA al Canòdrom
Totes les notícies