A Dispatch From Outside the Prison Holding Barrett Brown 95
Daniel_Stuckey writes with an excerpt from his story at Motherboard: "Yesterday, I got as close as any media physically can to Barrett Brown, the American journalist that was locked up in late 2012 for pasting a hyperlink in a chatroom, which federal prosecutors alleged contained leaked credit card data from the Statfor hacks. Due to a media gag order upheld by the US District Court in the Northern District of Texas, Brown isn't allowed to make "any statement to members of any television, radio, newspaper, magazine, internet (included, but not limited to bloggers)," with the exception of Kevin M. Gallagher, who heads his defense fund. ... Earlier this week, US Attorney Sarah Saldaña filed a motion to dismiss 11 of Brown's charges, namely those related to the pasted hyperlink (including trafficking in stolen authentication features, aggravated identity theft, and access device fraud). The motion came as both a victory for Brown's case, and a sigh of relief to supporters who have continuously cited the absurdity of his charges related to hyperlinking."
A year and a half locked up (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A year and a half locked up (Score:5, Insightful)
"files this Motion to Dismiss Count One and
Counts Three through Twelve in the original Indictment and in the Superseding Indictment
in the above entitled and numbered cause."
It seems to me that some douchebag(s) decided that free speech should be punished based on bullshit reasons. They just made up bullshit reasons to have him imprisoned, and kept incommunicado. A year and a half on, "Your honor, we want to just dismiss all these charges. They are totally bogus, and we'll never be able to prove any of them."
Yes, this IS very much about the government saying "you are busted for speaking".
Re:A year and a half locked up (Score:5, Interesting)
No, he is still being held for access device fraud (possessing stolen credit card info) and making threats to an FBI agent and his family. He is also on some obstruction charges connected to his hiding two laptops from a search.
The pasting of links and all are just in the middle of this making you think something that isn't really the case.
Re:A year and a half locked up (Score:5, Insightful)
There is something more, that is pretty obvious though.
When an attorney thinks he has something, he goes into a feeding frenzy, making up charges, and piling them on ad infinitum. The theory seems to be, threaten a man with ten thousand years of prison and two executions, and he will confess to jaywalking and accept a mere one hundred years in prison to get out from under all the rest.
"We're from the government, and we're here to help."
Re: (Score:3)
Oh I know what you are saying about the frenzy.. that's likely why 13 counts were dropped- nothing but fodder to scare him and when it looked like it wasn't working, they decided not to bother.
I was watching the state supreme court on the Ohio channel the other day and saw a case in which one of the supreme court justices asked a prosecutor if the gun spec for a crime was mandatory or something the prosecutor can pile on for leverage in negotiating a plea agreement. To think that a supreme court justice adv
Thats a load (Score:1)
Yes and the FBI has always performed numerous illegal tactics, false testimony, false statements, in order to make sure bullshit cases that have really no evidence to the offending charges, can go to trial or entrap someone to make a plea deal.
"making threats to an FBI agent and his family." what could have said did he actually threaten to kill him and his family? Or did he threaten to write up a story on him and his family to drag him thru the mud? SO its okay for the feds to do it, but not okay for someo
Re: (Score:2)
So what was done here beside piling charges on and then removing them once they were challenged?
Re: (Score:1)
This is the government completely ignoring this man's constitutional protections as stated in the Bill of Rights. He has been convicted of no crime.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly are those?
I mean which ones exactly. Denying someone bail is pretty common. Gag orders are pretty common. So what exactly is being violated here?
Re:A year and a half locked up (Score:5, Insightful)
Gag orders are pretty common.
I like how you say this as if how common something is makes a difference to whether or not someone's rights are being violated.
Re: (Score:3)
It's common because the courts have upheld the practice.
United States v. McVeigh
Jones v. Clinton
Those are two cases a gag order was used in whole or part and stood up to challenges on their constitutionality. I'm sure there are more should anyone bother looking.
The way you want it to be isn't always the way it is. It's like the second amendment, shall not be infringed seems to mean unless some contrived situation exists like living in a democrat controlled state.
Re: (Score:2)
It's common because the courts have upheld the practice.
Given power, people will abuse it. This isn't surprising.
The way you want it to be isn't always the way it is.
I never said otherwise. The problem I have is when people state things in such a way that it suggests that courts' interpretations of the law/constitution are always right and no one can object. Maybe that's not what you meant, but the sentence I quoted (and the one after it) seemed to suggest that.
It's like the second amendment, shall not be infringed seems to mean unless some contrived situation exists like living in a democrat controlled state.
Yes. Or how certain weapons are banned.
Re:A year and a half locked up (Score:5, Insightful)
First amendment: freedom of speech.
Fifth Amendment: deprivation of liberty without due process
Sixth Amendment: speedy and public trial by jury
Eighth Amendment: excessive bail imposed
Sure, the government violates these rights often. Doesn't mean they aren't violations.
If Nixon could have put Woodward and Bernstein in prison, incommunicado, for the rest of his term, he'd never have been impeached.
Re: (Score:1)
I think that was exactly the problem he was referring to.
Re: (Score:2)
It can't be a problem since the delay in the trial wasat the request of the defendant.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So what exactly is being violated here?
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...."
Re: (Score:2)
He surrendered that right himself. Or his lawyer did for him when they asked for the first extension.
Re: (Score:3)
What did they do, threaten to charge his mother with more crimes if he demanded his right to a speedy trial?
Re: (Score:2)
You surrender or waive your right to a speedy trial any time you ask for a postponement of one of the procedures associated with it or sign a waiver of said right because you need the time for whatever reason. It is always the defendant that surrenders that right and it is never taken.
In July or August of 2013, Brown filed a motion for continuation due to being overwhelmed by discovery and an inability to prepare for his September 2013 trial day. He asked to postpone until Feb. 2014. The government's respon
Re: (Score:3)
So the prosecution routinely overwhelms the defense with procedural crap to make sure it HAS to request an extension. That is, it constructively denies the right to a speedy trial.
Re: (Score:2)
So is prison rape. Does that make it okay too?
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any law or process to make prison rape legal?
I mean seriously, that is what we are talking about here, legal due process. Are you saying he was prison raped or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you can't make A->B comparisons.
You said something was pretty common. So did I. You infered that made it not a violation of someone's rights, as though commonality were the issue.
If being common wasn't your point, you shouldn't have said "is pretty common" and used an actual defense of the situation instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You never heard the cliche about yelling fire in a crowded theater? You never knew people could be arrested, charged and convicted simply for threatening the president or most politicians with bodily harm or death?
Re: (Score:3)
How could anything he says possibly impede prosecution, incite others to repeat his crime or aid others in either committing it or cover their tracks? That would be pretty much the ONLY good reasons I could possibly see for a gag order.
Re: (Score:2)
The reasons judges give out gag orders is because information swarms taint juries. They become prejudiced before they can be selected for the jury unless you want a bunch of imbeciles on the jury who don't use computers and wouldn't know a hyperlink from hypertension or even who the current president or vice president is. That could screw the defense or prosecution up pretty badly.
Re: (Score:3)
The moment they get someone who CAN actually tell a hyperlink from hypertension in the jury the prosecution is screwed. Why do you think reporting about it could possibly change that?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not the one you need to ask why to. It's the judge who came up with the rationale. It's sort of like making available is the same as distribution even though no distribution has been shown to of taken place.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if he had been distributing, why the gag? There is simply no good reason for the gag order.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, yes it does. Free speech means you cannot be subject to force or coercion for what you merely say.
Why ? Because USA has become more Soviet than USSR (Score:5, Insightful)
No trial yet, his free speech (as a journalist) removed, why?
The United States of America was the country I fled to, after I got out of China.
In the China I escaped from, back then, people could be locked up, without trial, and the authority could use any trump up charge against them, and there is nothing the people could do, as China has no "Bill of Rights" nor a Constitution that guarantees the rights of the citizens.
Nowadays, in China, people are still being locked up, on trumped up charges, but at the very least, the authority has to try to prove that their trump up charge is valid (but of course everybody know that they are bullshit).
On the other hand, the very country that I fled to, the United States of America has become the United Soviet of America.
Not only the authority can lock up anyone with any trumped up charge, without any trial, the authority can also go against the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States of America, as though both documents are now as worthy as a soiled toilet paper.
What the fuck is going on, man ?
Why are the Americans, - (and I am one of them, a naturalized American) - especially those who are born and bred, letting the nation to turn into such a horrible police state ??
Re: (Score:3)
I am very sorry to say that it appears to be because the cold war is over and that the reasons we fought the cold war were being constantly repeated to us to justify the cost - "they don't have free speech, they don't have independent legal systems, they oppress minorities". Apparently now we no longer have that enemy we are fighting for those reasons its OK to openly do all the things that we were supposedly fighting against. Its very sad.
Re: (Score:2)
And Afganistan, when 'they hate our freedoms' was commonly cited as a reason the Taliban were so hostile towards the US.
It's not an entirely inaccurate claim, but still a great oversimplification.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they never had to fight for their freedom.
Humans are kinda odd. They are quite willing to give away what they take for granted to get something they think is valuable, not considering that for the promise of the latter they could easily lose the former. For reference, see Native Americans, their land and glass marbles. Or current Americans, their freedom and security. Same raw deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The state have "won" because (Score:3, Insightful)
... the state have already 'won' by making serve so long in prison
The state have "won" simply because the Americans, me included, are morons !
It is us, the American citizens, who let the government tore up the Constitutions and we deserve any and all abuses from the government.
We are the ones who have ruined the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, a simple threat of violence isn't a reason enough to take away someone's liberty this long.
Whew (Score:4, Funny)
This is why I thank the Lord that I live in the greatest country in the world and not in some craphole place like North Korea or Russia where journalists can get held in prison for years for like this. We should send in the best frikkin' army in the world and free him. That'll show those commie bastards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Media gag order (Score:5, Insightful)
But this case highlights another serious problem with the US justice system and that is where, after this is dismissed, that the prosecutors will face little or no consequences for trying to enforce the will of a corporation.
And, of course, there is even less chance that this politically well connected company or its officers will face any consequences at all.
There needs to be some mechanism where governments that try to abusively control information results in horrific penalties to those involved such as serious jail time. Otherwise those who leak, those who film police, and those who deny inconvenient freedom of information requests will just continue to hide embarrassing information using the most abusive powers at their disposal.
For example, I can't remember the last time someone was arrested for filming and anything bad happening to the police who then tried to destroy the footage. This should be minimally resulting in destruction of evidence charges, and often kidnapping charges for the arrest. So no laws need to be changed or anything in these cases, just a willingness to realize that the police are not perfect little roses and that we are all better off when they are head up to even higher standards of justice.
Re: (Score:1)
... There is a good reason the 1st amendment was written ...
Wasn't the 1st amendment (well, the entire bill really) made obsolete after 911?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh that's simply not true. You can still have arms and there haven't been any soldiers stationed in your home, where there?
How could you say it is obsolete! Without that document, the government could easily put soldiers in your home, do you want that? Do you? Isn't that enough to be a bit more lenient with a few of the others that don't matter so much?
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason the 3rd amendment is still in force is because Halliburton would get pissed if they lost barracks construction contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL (obviously) I recall some sort of "conspiracy to deprive someone of their human rights" type law that's a pretty serious offense.
Is it really that there's no recourse on these sort of things, or that people are afraid to use them?
Re: (Score:2)
Your other option is to go to the courts (run by those same bosses) and ask that they nail their brothers in the justice system. Judges are generally reluctant to nail cops to the wall in that they feel that it discredits the entire justice system when a cop is found guilty of something (or a judge, or a prosecutor).
So occasionally some member of the justice system does something so reprehensib
Prosecutors too busy to catch the real criminals (Score:5, Insightful)
The "prosecutors" have become "PERSECUTORS" (Score:3, Insightful)
It amazes me that US prosecutors go full throttle going after people like Barrett Brown and Aaron Swartz
Do not be amazed !
The US prosecutors have become PERSECUTORS.
Instead of prosecute, the PERSECUTE.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Prosecutors too busy to catch the real criminal (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that amazing. The US government has been sold off to the highest bidders. They just interpret the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean so it doesn't get in their way anymore. At least they're smart enough to know there are limits to what they can do without waking up the apathetic majority. As long as they don't go too far most people are content to ignore the danger of a government that has slipped it's leash.
Re: (Score:2)
They have convictions, a moral compass, and often political aspirations.
A case like this is guaranteed press coverage and (hopefully) some camera time on cable news.
There was a prosecuter in NYC who made a pretty stellar career off of high profile prosecutions.
Re: (Score:2)
Not saying the government hasn't been bought. But by Occam's razor, a simpler explanation is that little fish like Brown and Swartz don't have the funds to mount a persistent and comprehensive legal defense. Prosecutors see them as a way to score a quick and easy victory, compared to bringing charges against Corzine and being tied up in court for a decade or more with a questionable outcome. I'd even go so far as to say there
Re:Prosecutors too busy to catch the real criminal (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I find this to be the single most infuriating aspect of the financial crisis -- in any country. Every single time I hear about public time and money being wasted on frivolous prosecutions, I am keenly reminded that these are the same police services and directors of public prosecutions who won't investigate the banks. Not who can't; who won't -- Refuse to even. it would be one this if the justice system was simply universally inept. But cases like this shows they can and do act with extreme prejudice when they have a mind to.
It's shambolic, slipshod, corrosive to the justice system and ultimately seditious. It's the clearest indication of the justice system which has been seized by political interests, and which refuses to perform its stated function to maintain the rule of law.
P.S.
Regarding Corzine. The money did not "disappear". Corzine stole it out of customer accounts to covers his bills at JP Morgan. He knew exactly where it went; and the SEC and the Justice Department know exactly where it went but refuse to do anything about ti. They're too busy perusing basement dwelling geeks and beatniks to investigate those cases which actually rock the foundations of commerce and law. Stellar job there Mr Holder; Kudos.
Re: (Score:2)
I am keenly reminded that these are the same police services and directors of public prosecutions who won't investigate the banks. Not who can't; who won't
No, they really can't. If they did, they would find themselves jobless rapidly.
Re:Prosecutors too busy to catch the real criminal (Score:4, Insightful)
France has examining judges, Canada and the U.S. have special prosecutors, in part to ensure that political pressure can't shut down a prosecution. Examining judges are mostly automatic of serious crimes, but special prosecutors are rare and unusual, and appointing one often take considerable political power.
Solved problem in jusrisprudence, just not our jurisprudence!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Corzine raised a lot of money for Obama's reelection bid. This has made him immune from any real prosecution. If he were a Republican he'd be in a Supermax prison by now.
The Strange Case of Barrett Brown .. (Score:1)
"Today, Brown is in prison and ProjectPM is under increased scrutiny by the DOJ, even as its work has ground to a halt. In March, the DOJ served the domain hosting service CloudFlare with a subpoena for all records on the ProjectPM website, and in particular asked f
In other words ... (Score:2)
... this is not that different from the inquisition !!
Instead of the "Spanish inquisition", what we have here is the American Inquisition.
As though America never learn anything from the witch hunt episodes (including the burning of "witches" in the 1700's, and the "red scare" period in the 1950's) of the yesteryears.
South African Dictatorshiop (Score:1)
Land of the free, home of the brave ? (Score:2)
Don't you make me puke !
America is no longer the Land of the Free.
America has become the Land of the Eunuch.
Looc r Stac (Score:4, Insightful)
This is absolutely some bullshit, but even the most fervent Bill of Rights activist would admit Mr Brown kind of stepped on his dick when he pasted that hyperlink.
His charges and time served are being acknowledged as absurd by the US Attorney's office because of attention like this. The powers that be are not so powerful yet that some semi-organized public outrage does not still motivate them.
The poor bastards in Guantanamo have been largely forgotten... oh yeah, and they have the scarlet T on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Old B squared has made much more of a career as a bear-poker than as an actual journalist, and should've been aware giving the opposition ammunition to use against him was in poor judgement. His heroin problem was widely publicized, perhaps for the same reason, but it plausibly contributed to his decision-making process.
He's an idealist,
Re: (Score:2)
Gross (Score:2)
"Yesterday, I got as close as any media physically can to Barrett Brown"
Gross.