How to testify at a grand jury: David House “invokes” on Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, & taking illegal notes

Bradley Manning supporter David House was called last year before the grand jury preparing charges against Julian Assange, in the event Assange is successfully remanded to Sweden. Despite being told a transcript was forbidden, House took notes which have now found themselves (A)nonymously online, reproduced here with David House’s refrain in bold. Here’s Grand Jury, a comedy:  

1. Record of proceedings
2. As recorded by David House
3. Grand Jury, Alexandria VA
4. 15 June 2011, 4:10pm to 5pm
5.  
6. Inside the Grand Jury:
7. DOJ Counterespionage Section: Attorney Patrick Murphy *
8. DOJ Counterespionage Section: Attorney Deborah Curtis *
9. Eastern District of Virginia: AUSA Bob Wiechering
10. Eastern District of Virginia: AUSA Tracy McCormick
11. Eastern District of Virginia: AUSA Karen Dunn
12. Unspecified number of Grand Jurors
13. Court Steganographer
14. David House
15.  
16. Directly outside the Grand Jury:
17. Mike Condon, FBI Agent from Washington, D.C. field office
18. James Farmer, Chief of Anti-Terrorism and National Security Unit at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D. Mass
19. Peter Krupp, David House’s attorney
20.  
21.  
22. Record begins: 4:10pm
23. [David House is sworn in and informed of his rights]
24. Patrick Murphy: Would you please state your full name for the record?
25. David House: My name is David House.
26. PM: Did you meet Bradley Manning in January 2010?
27. DH: On the advice of counsel, I invoke my right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I am concerned that this grand jury is seeking information designed to infringe or chill my associational privacy, and that of others, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that it is using information obtained without a search warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I define the preceding statement as “invoke”, and when I say “I invoke” in the future I am referring to this statement.
28. Deborah Curtis: Exhibit 1-A?
29. PM: Mr. House, please direct your attention to the screen behind you, exhibit 1-A.
30. DC: I can’t make it bigger.
31. PM: Try… here, remove that bar on the side.
32. DC: That didn’t work.
33. DH: Do you guys need help?
34. DC: We just need to make it bigger. Can everyone see this okay?
35. PM: Ok… we’re going to continue.
36.  
37. [A still image from the Frontline PBS special is displayed on the screen. Four figures are standing in front of the BUILDS logo, one figure has her back turned.]
38.  
39. PM: Mr. House, can you identify the man on the right?
40. DH: I invoke.
41. PM: Can you identify the man standing second from right?
42. DH: I invoke.
43. PM: Ok, can you identify the person with bright-colored hair, standing here?
44. DH: I invoke.
45. PM: Are we to believe that identifying that individual would somehow incriminate you?
46. DH: On the advice of counsel, I invoke my right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I am concerned that this grand jury is seeking information designed to infringe or chill my associational privacy, and that of others, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that it is using information obtained without a search warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
47. PM: Ok, can you identify the man on the left?
48. PM: I would like to observe for the record that Mr. House is taking notes.
49. DH: As to the previous question, I invoke.
50. PM: Why are you taking notes?
51. DH: Invoke.
52. Bob Wiechering: I’d like to recommend, at this point, that we take a break and talk to your counsel.
53.  
54. [AUSAs and House leave the grand jury]
55. [Peter Krupp, House’s attorney, asserts House’s right to invoke]
56. [AUSAs and House return to the grand jury]
57.  
58. PM: What is your birthdate?
59. DH: March 14, 1987
60. PM: Where do you live?
61. DH: Can you restate the question?
62. PM: What is your address?
63. DH: I invoke.
64. PM: What is your current occupation?
65. DH: I invoke.
66. PM: Were you a senior in computer science at Boston University in January 2010?
67. DH: I invoke.
68. PM: Isn’t it true that you told PBS Frontline that you were a senior at Boston University in January 2010?
69. DH: I invoke.
70. PM: Do you know what a hackerspace is?
71. DH: I invoke.
72. PM: Do you know what BUILDS is, the acronym?
73. DH: I invoke.
74. Bob Wiechering: Mr. House, I notice you are taking notes. Attempting to create your own transcript is a violation of rule 6(e) of this grand jury. We have brought this to the attention of your counsel, and although he feels differently on the matter, we assert that you must stop taking notes at this time.
75. DH: Let me consult with my attorney.
76. [House leaves the grand jury room and returns one minute later]
77. DH: My lawyer asks that you refer all questions about notes to him.
78. BW: Let’s continue.
79. PM: Mr. House, are you involved with the Bradley Manning Support Network?
80. DH: I invoke.
81. PM: Did you respond in the affirmative when asked by the FBI if you had heard of known WikiLeaks associate Jacob Appelbaum?
82. PM: I would like to state for the record that Mr. House is not answering the question and is instead taking notes.
83. DH: I invoke.
84. PM: Do you intend to answer any of my questions, aside from your date of birth and your name?
85. DH: I invoke.
86. PM: Is that because of the phalanx of attorneys present here today?
87. Court Stenographer: I’m sorry, the what of attorneys?
88. PM: Phalanx… the phalanx of attorneys.
89. DH: As to the phalanx of attorneys, I invoke.
90. PM: At this time, I will let Deborah Curtis ask a few questions.
91. DC: Mr. House, have you ever been to the Oxford Spa restaurant in Cambridge, MA?
92. DH: Allow me to consult with my attorney.
93. [House leaves the grand jury and returns one minute later.]
94. DH: As to the previous question, I invoke.
95. DC: You admitted to federal agents in Boston that you had met Bradley Manning in January 2010, is that correct?
96. DH: I invoke.
97. DC: Isn’t it true that you spent the night of January 27 2010 with Daniel Clark and Bradley Manning?
98. DH: Can you repeat the question?
99. DC: Isn’t it true that you spent the night of January 27 2010 with Daniel Clark and Bradley Manning?
100. DH: One more time.
101. DC: Isn’t it true that you spent the night of January 27 2010 with Daniel Clark and Bradley Manning?
102. PM: He’s writing it down.
103. DC: Are you getting this, are you writing it all down?
104. DH: Was the last question a question to be answered?
105. DC: Yes.
106. DH: I invoke.
107. DC: And the question before?
108. DH: I also invoke.
109. DC: Where did Danny Clark have breakfast on the morning of January 28, 2010?
110. DH: Allow me to consult with my attorney.
111. [House leaves the grand jury and returns one minute later.]
112. DH: As to the previous question, I invoke.
113. DC: Do you intend to answer any questions about Daniel Clark?
114. DH: Invoke.
115. DC: Do you intend to answer any questions about Bradley Manning?
116. DH: [Writing] Could you please repeat the question?
117. DC: Do you intend to answer any questions about Jacob Appelbaum?
118. DH: I invoke.
119. DC: At this time, we’d like to stop the proceedings. You are free to leave.

Press intimidation, frivolous lawfare, and sabotage, it’s hasbarapocalypse

Flotilla2 boat to GazaYou’re looking at an underwater photo of the starboard propeller of the passenger ship “Juliano” berthed in Piraeus, Greece, waiting to sail with the “Stay Human” Freedom Flotilla II departing soon to break the siege of Gaza. Reports of sabotage babelfished, even as some flotilla participants quickly issued a retraction. As diver video documented, someone assailed the propeller shaft casing, luckily repairable, but Greek authorities could seize on the incident to delay the activists with an investigation, or insist on further inspections, using anticipation of sabotage to delay or forbid the voyage.

Whodunnit? Sooner than point the finger at whoever took the intelligence contract, better to focus on the flotilla’s irrepressible forward momentum. Notice how the Hasbara themes want to presage the relief effort’s dwindling relevance? Sabotage would grant Israel too easy success. You can’t kill activism but in the shadows.

Fortunately the flotilla vessels are arrayed at various Mediterranean ports, and the identities are being kept secret, much as the internet chorus would like to track them by satellite. So far the flotilla organizer strategies have been impeccable.

Media reports of nonviolence classes counter Israeli anticipation of violence.

The American boat’s decision to bring only a cargo of letters appears to have been a savvy maneuver around the US DOJ’s predictable enforcement of its anti-terrorism statutes. Yes, Hamas was democratically elected, but on the books it’s a terrorist entity and supporting it materially will result in charges. It seems inconceivable, but surprise seems to be a recurring judicial theme. The US delegation comprises the antiwar movements most luminary, I have to credit them now for not being too reckless. Where would the rest of us be, if they are behind bars?

Next I expect we will see the wit behind naming their boat after President Obama’s bestseller Audacity of Hope. What’s that going to do for his Google-metrics? Obama won’t be able to mention it again, without drawing reference to the Gaza relief mission he didn’t support.

The flotilla2 organizers don’t hope to provoke Israel, nor shame the IDF to “Stay Human,” they want to sail the the people of Gaza.

Meanwhile, Israel asserts its right to besiege Gaza, to starve, harass and demoralize the Palestinians in hope that eventually they’ll just want to leave. And that’s why the flotilla must not pass.

Opposing war is not a crime: stop FBI suppression of antiwar activists JAN 25

COLORADO SPRINGS – JANUARY 25 – Protest the recent FBI raids and the DOJ grand jury subpoenas aimed at intimidating members of antiwar and Palestinian rights groups. Join Coloradans For Peace and compatriots beneath the windows of the FBI field office, located in the Plaza of the Rockies downtown, the complex where activists have been prevented from visiting their senator’s office, mostly a mall of investment bankers and brokerage firms. Not without irony, the main facade is named for war profiteer consultancy Booz Allen Hamilton. Come Tuesday Jan 25, from 4pm to 5pm. Meet on the NE corner of Tejon & Colorado.
 
Some consider the FBI to be the lesser of the US intelligence community’s seventeen known evils. Shall we draw the line at surveillance, infiltration and instigation of peace advocacy groups? Eric Holder’s Department of Justice won’t go after war criminals, torturers, or any facet of President Obama’s accelerated abuses on human rights. But they want to target humanitarian groups in hopes of tying their social causes to “terrorism, ” the traditional authoritarian label for political rival.

What Twitter resisted releasing to DOJ, and we may presume Facebook did not

So the US Department of Justice wants Twitter’s records on the Wikileaks crew. So what, it’s social media — why expect that spooks can’t follow like everybody else? Except the USG wants to know more than followers or tweets, they want IPs, whose computer, network, when, etc, plus they don’t want persons of interest or the public to know what info they’re gathering. That’s a standard MO when investigating crimes like racketeering, but this is a DoJ fishing expedition with aim to criminalize journalism and whistle-blowing, in the meantime violating the privacy of untold thousands, if you are reading this, very likely yours.

Unless you know Kevin Bacon personally, you are separated by fewer degrees from rop_g, ioerror, birgittaj, Assange and Bradley Manning.

Twitter notified the users named in the December 14 DOJ request, whose lawyers had a judge unveil the document. The government of Iceland has summoned their US envoy to explain what claim the USG can make to personal data on Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of Iceland’s parliament. Salon has put the fax online which lists the specifics the DoJ is after:

A. The following customer or subscriber account information for each account registered to or associated with Wikileaks …

1. subscriber names, user names, screen names, or other identities;

2. mailing addresses, residential addresses, business addresses, e-mail addresses, and other contact information;

3. connection records, or records of session times and durations;

4. length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;

5. telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporary assigned network address; and

6. means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number) and billing records.

B. All records and other information relating to the account(s) and time period in Part A, including:

1. records of user activity for any connections made to and from the Account, including the date, time, length, and method of connections, data transfer volume, user name, and source and destination Internet Protocol address(es);

2. non-content information associated with the contents of any communication or file stored by or for the account(s), such as the source and destination email addresses and IP addresses.

3. correspondence and notes of records related to the account(s).

Palin signed off on Giffords shooting, grizzly lipstick plot to direct gunmen

Assassination checklist for Tea Party political opponentsAZ representative Gabrielle Giffords was one of twenty crosshairs on Sarah Palin’s checklist directing political assassinations.
 
Whether Jared Lee Loughner was a lone gunman, or in a TP or al-Qaeda cell, shouldn’t the DOJ investigate the grizzly mastermind who is inciting these acts? While they’re at it, Vice President Biden for illegally targeting Wikileaks’ Julian Assange, and Boss Obama who commands extrajudicial assassinations via military/CIA drones. If this was a GPS map of Pakistan the “unhinged shooters” would be Predator Drone operators.

Michael Moore tweeted these interesting links:

Dem Rep Giffords shot in head in Az. Sarah Palin had put CROSSHAIRS/ BULLSEYE on Giffords on her website! OUTRAGE!

When Rep Giffords voted in favor of health care bill, her office in Tucson was attacked & vandalized.

Palin “set gun sights on 20 Dems (including Giffords).” Palin site now seems 2 b 2 taking down crosshairs map!

In 2009, another gun nut showed up where Rep Giffords was speaking (at another Safeway) & dropped his gun

Giffords opponent held June event 2 “Shoot a Fully Automatic M16” to “Get on Target” & “Remove Gabrielle Giffords”

When Palin put crosshairs on a map w/ Rep. Giffords & 19 other Dem congressmen/women, she urged followers to “reload” & “aim” for Democrats.

Stunning admission by Tucson sheriff: Arizona “a mecca” of hate & bigotry which unhinges the unbalanced Wow.

Christina Green was the 9yr old killed. She was born on 9/11. Was on student council & only girl on baseball team.

If a Detroit Muslim put a map on the web w/crosshairs on 20 pols, then 1 of them got shot, where would he b sitting right now? Just asking.

Someone please tell Mrs. Al-Ghizzawi that her husband is cleared for release

Guantanamo legal defense lawyer…if that means anything. It’s a long story, but after waiting eight years locked in Guantanamo, Abdul Hamid Al-Ghizzawi has a tale that could bear listeners. But his lawyer H. Candace Gorman is not allowed to tell it, she’s under court orders to keep mum. Even after details came through the foreign press, a judge ordered that Gorman remove two subsequent posts from The Guantanamo Blog which offered clarification. NMT learned from the Supreme Court Of the United States Blog (SCOTUSBLOG) that Gorman’s articles are still cached. Naturally we have reprinted them here.

Read them and become a state secret yourself.

Just kidding– the information is not ruled to be a state secret, only “protected,” whatever that means. Regardless that the information is already public, Ms. Gorman herself is not permitted to propagate it. You and I can divulge what we wish.

And divulge we must, I’m sure you’ll agree. Whether or not internet mirrors can be penalized, what is this sham of “protected” information? The concept defiles President Obama’s expressed objective of transparent government. This particular information shames our judicial system. Read it and judge for yourself.

You can keep up on Guantanamo attorney Candace Gorman’s latest efforts at gtmoblog.bogspot.com, but you won’t find these two posts: THE MUZZLE IS OFF, and THE MUZZLE IS BACK ON. I’ve also included the text of Judge John Bates’ gag order, and Ms. Gorman’s latest filing. Halfway down I will offer a summary, if you’re in a hurry.

November 17, 2009
THE MUZZLE IS OFF

In June of this year I received a call from a foreign reporter who asked if I could give her a profile of my client Al-Ghizzawi as he was on a list of men whom the US was looking for a new home and her country was considering accepting him. This was the first I had learned that Al-Ghizzawi had been “cleared” by the Obama review team for release. I gave her information about my client and for all I know a story was published about the plight of al-Ghizzawi at Guantanamo, his status as “cleared” and why he needed a country in Europe to take him.

A few days later an attorney from the justice department called to tell me that Al-Ghizzawi was cleared for release and we laughed about the fact that I already knew the information. However the laughing stopped when the attorney told me that the justice department had designated the information as “protected” and I could not tell anyone except my client and those people who had signed on to the protective order (a court document that outlines the procedures for the Guantanamo cases) about his status as “cleared for release.” I told the attorney that he could not declare something “protected” that was already in the public domain. To make a long story short we were not in agreement and the attorney filed an emergency motion with the judge to muzzle me. Despite the fact that the information was in the public domain I was muzzled by the good judge who apparently doesn’t believe that the constitution applies to me. I couldn’t even tell Mr. Al-Ghizzawi’s brother what I thought was good news (I didn’t know then that this was just another stall tactic by the justice department).

Not only was I muzzled but Mr. Al-Ghizzawi’s case was put on hold. The habeas hearing that we had been fighting to obtain literally for years was stayed by the judge despite the fact that the US Supreme Court held in June of 2008 that the men were entitled to swift hearings…. So much for the Supreme Court! The president asked the judges to stop the hearings for those men who were “cleared” for release and the judges have fallen into lockstep, shamefully abandoning their duties as judges.

A few months later when I visited Al-Ghizzawi (at the end of August) he had just received word from his wife that she could no longer wait for his release and she asked him if she would sign papers for a divorce. Bad news is an every day occurrence for Al-Ghizzawi and he was holding up well despite this latest blow.

When I returned from the base I asked the justice department to allow me to contact Al-Ghizzawi’s wife and tell her that he had been cleared for release. I hoped that if she knew he was to be released she would hang in there and not go through with the divorce. I was told they would get back to me. When they didn’t I asked again but they still would not give me the ok. In Court papers I pleaded with the judge to let me tell Al-Ghizzawi’s brother and wife, telling the judge about the wife’s request for a divorce, but the Judge, the same Judge who has apparently decided to ignore the supreme court’s directive for quick habeas hearings, ignored this plea as well.

I seriously thought about disobeying the order and trying to get word to Al-Ghizzawis’ wife and then taking whatever lumps were thrown my way….however, despite the fact that the judicial system has failed Al-Ghizzawi and most of the men at Guantanamo I could not bring myself to blatantly disobey a court order. For five months I have kept this information confidential despite the injustice to both my client, Mr. Al-Ghizzawi, and to what was our rule of law…. until yesterday, when the muzzle was lifted.

This is only part of the story. I will be writing more about this in the future and our friend the talking dog has more to say on this.

Click on the title for his take.

Meanwhile, if you hear from a habeas attorney that his or her case has been stayed you will know about the injustice that their client is continuing to suffer, you will know that the client has been cleared for release, that the attorney cannot discuss that fact and that the judge in that case has abandoned his or her duty to be a judge. You will also know that being cleared for release is just as meaningless as everything else that has been happening to these unfortunate men…. because being cleared for release means nothing.

And the follow-up:

Saturday, November 21, 2009
THE MUZZLE IS BACK ON

Fortunately for all of you….the muzzle only applies to me.

On Tuesday I reported that the Government finally allowed me to discuss matters that had previously been “protected” in regards to my client Al-Ghizzawi. In fact the Government unclassified and allowed for public release a Petition for Original Habeas Corpus that I filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. I released that Petition to the Public in accordance with the Government’s designation of “unclassified.” On Friday the Department of Justice (DOJ) told me that it had made a mistake and that it had apparently violated the Protective Order (an Order that sets out the rules for the DOJ and Habeas counsel in regards to the Guantanamo cases) entered in the case when it “unclassified” and allowed for public release information in the Petition that it wanted to “protect” and that therefore I must remove my post of November 17 because of the DOJ’s mistake. I explained to the DOJ attorneys that the Petition and my Post of November 17th were widely distributed and are available at various sites on the web… they do not seem to care about that ….they only care that I not report about what they are now trying to declare “protected information”…. 5 days after they unclassified the material and made it available for public release.

This is of course outrageous conduct by the DOJ…. in trying to declare something as “protected” after being clearly designated and distributed to the public but what else is new? For those of you who either remember my November 17th post or have it available on your website…. I originally learned of the so called “Protected” information from a public source and the Judge in Al-Ghizzawi’s case still ruled that I could not discuss it. Anyway, later this weekend I will try to provide all of the links that I can find from other sources who properly reported on the petition and my saga regarding it…. for now I am leaving you with these two links…. here and here as I happen to have these easily available.

I also expect several websites and other media outlets to be reporting on this and making the petition available at their websites because they received it from me back when I was allowed to distribute it or otherwise obtained it on the internet. I also provided interviews earlier this week and I expect that those will soon be available too. If any of you have time out there to find some of the websites where this story and petition are published please feel free to provide a link…or if you see it pop up on websites in the coming weeks please provide those links as well.

This is not the end of this story. Under the Protective Order the Government must actually get the Judge’s permission to retroactively keep me (and only me) from publishing and discussion the information that the Government now seeks to “Protect.” The DOJ will have to file a document with the Court explaining why this now very public information should be “protected.” Ultimately it will be the Judge’s decision. If you do not see my post back up that will mean that the Judge agreed with the Government, that I alone cannot talk about those things that you are privy to discuss.

I will just add…. this is just another day in the life of being a habeas counsel.

Are you looking for a summary? Mr. Al-Ghizzawi is among the Guantanamo inmates who have been “cleared for release.” Foreign governments know this, as well as the foreign press. But officially the status is “protected information.” Meanwhile, probably among other tragic developments, Al-Ghizzawi’s wife is seeking a divorce based on her impression that her husband will never be released. And attorney Gorman is forbidden to tell her she knows otherwise.

Except, that being “cleared for release” now has turned out to mean a worse limbo than before. It means all legal motions are suspended, pending a government action that is not forthcoming. Thus Mrs. Al-Ghizzawi’s prediction may be more accurate than the lawyer’s, that her husband is nowhere closer to being released.

And Judge Bates may understand this too.

Below is the Judge’s gag order:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ABDUL HAMID AL-GHIZZAWI,
Petitioner,
v.
GEORGE W. BUSH, et al.,
Respondents.

Civil Action No. 05-2378 (JDB)

ORDER

Before the Court is [277] respondents’ emergency motion to enforce the protective orders in this case, which was filed yesterday. Respondents ask the Court to order petitioner’s counsel to remove an article from her website that respondents contend reveals protected information. See Resp’ts’ Mot. to Enforce the Protective Orders [Docket Entry 273], at 1. They also request that the Court direct petitioner’s counsel “not to further disseminate ‘protected’ information.” Id. For her part, petitioner’s counsel asserts that the information she posted on her website and used in the article was disclosed by the government before the present dispute. See Pet’r’s Opp’n to Respt’ts’ Mot. [Docket Entry 274], at 5. Accordingly, she offers, “it is an extraordinarily odd situation to permit everyone else in the world to discuss this matter except counsel.” Id. She also suggests that this Court has no jurisdiction to address a filing made in the Supreme Court in petitioner’s original habeas corpus proceeding. See Pet’r’s Supplemental Resp. to Resp’ts’ Mot. [Docket Entry 276], at 2-3.

Petitioner’s counsel is bound by the various protective orders in this case, whether or not any “protected” information is now available on the internet. Here, despite its apparent inadvertent disclosure, the disputed information remains “protected” material. And accordingly, petitioner’s counsel is precluded from disclosing it. Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that respondents’ motion is GRANTED pending further order of the Court; it is further

ORDERED that petitioner’s counsel shall remove the article entitled “The Muzzle is Back On” from her website because it contains “protected” information and derivative material; it is further

ORDERED that petitioner’s counsel shall not disclose “protected” information and information or documents derived from “protected” information as defined by the protective orders in this case; and it is further

ORDERED that the parties may file supplemental memoranda, limited to fifteen (15) pages, addressing this matter by not later than December 7, 2009.

SO ORDERED.

/s/
JOHN D. BATES
United States District Judge

Dated: November 25, 2009

And Gorman’s filing of Nov 25:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ABDUL HAMID AL-GHIZZAWI
Prisoner, Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba;
Petitioner,

v.

Barack Obama, et. al.
Respondents.
)

RESPONSE
motion to
No. 05 cv 2378 (JDB)

PETITIONERS SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FILED UNDER SEAL

Petitioner Abdul Hamid Al-Ghizzawi (“Petitioner” or “Al-Ghizzawi”) hereby supplements her Response to the Governments Motion under seal as follows:

On November 24th, 2009 Counsel for Petitioner filed a Response to a Motion by the Government despite the fact that she had not actually seen the Motion. Counsel did this because of her well reasoned concern that the Government would wait as long as possible to send Counsel the actual Motion (it was emailed to her 1 ½ hours after the notice went out and one hour after she emailed counsel for a copy) and that it would not fully address all of the facts (as is shown by the Motion). Counsel was preparing and did leave for a family gathering prior to receiving the actual Motion by email. After Filing that Response the Government filed a subsequent “notice of classified filing” and according to an email from the Court Security Office that Motion is entitled “Supplemental Memorandum.” Counsel for Petitioner does not have access to that document, which awaits her at the Secure Facility, has no idea of its contents and is therefore not addressing anything that might be in that supplemental memorandum related to the issues herein.

The issue that Counsel seeks to address herein is surprisingly not addressed by the Government in its Motion and that is the jurisdiction of the District Court to address issues raised in Petitioner’s Supreme Court filing. Counsel does not have the answer to this question although she spent some time on the question over the past few days and had hoped that the Government would explain in its Motion how the District Court could provide a remedy to an issue that occurred in a Supreme Court filing. In essence what the Government is asking this Court to do is to apply district court orders to a Supreme Court case. The Government should have the burden of establishing the District Court’s jurisdiction in this uniquely extraordinary circumstance of attempting to have the District Court enjoin the Supreme Court- As it – as it was the in the United States Supreme Court itself where this document was unsealed. As the Government noted in its Motion, the Petition for Original Habeas Corpus was filed in the Supreme Court on October 2, 2009. Petitioner filed the document under seal. The Government then reviewed the Petition and notified counsel and the Supreme Court that the Petition was declassified for public release. A copy of the Petition was attached to the notice by the Government that noted on each and every page that the document was “declassified for public release.” The history of that document after it was cleared is fully set out in Petitioner’s Response. When the Government later decided that it did not want certain of the information in the Petition released to the public instead of seeking relief from the Supreme Court, where the now declassified petition was filed, it instead has come back to the District Court for relief.

When Counsel for Petitioner filed her original habeas case she simultaneously filed a motion with the Supreme Court to ask that the Petition be filed under seal and it was the Supreme Court that sought a declassified version of the Petition for public filing. Counsel for Petitioner believes that the proper course of action that the Government should have taken would have been to file a Motion with the Supreme Court asking to retroactively “protect” certain information that it “declassified for public release” and which it then later determined it wanted to protect.

Wherefore, for the reasons stated in Petitioners original response and this Supplement Counsel asks this Court to deny the Government’s “emergency” Motion.

Respectfully Submitted,

November 25, 2009

/s/
H. Candace Gorman
Counsel for Petitioner

Law Office of H. Candace Gorman
H. Candace Gorman (IL Bar #6184278)

Two Right Wing Talking Points from Shooter von Brunn

Straight from the horses ass, Rush Limbaugh (and Mark Levin) and straight into the obligatory Shooter’s Manifesto. This makes three that failed in their attempts to suicide themselves to Right-Wing-Glory, worshipped by the American Taliban as fallen martyrs… but in the case of Adkinsson, Church Shooter who was aiming to shoot the children on stage when the gun was finally wrestled away from him, and von Brunn, and not a coincidence The Same Shit KVOR talk radio puts out, President Obamas birth certificate and George Bitch’s non-existent service record. First up, Contestant George B.

Seems the Right Wing Cult have been instructed by their High Priests to mock any attempts to prove that George coWard Bush didn’t finish out his Service Obligation. it was in both shooters manifestos.

Trouble is, the disputed discharge papers, “proven” false by none other than George Bush Sr’s Counterfeit Experts, who got their expertise by forging documents for anti-Nazi and anti-Communist groups…

Were the ONLY papers that actually demonstrate George Bush Jr actually serving. At All.

A convenient fire at the National Archives is to blame for that. Or so the Right Wing say.

President Obamas Birth Certificate, an issue pushed by Neo-Nazi group StormFront and their willing mouthpieces Levin, Limbaugh and Jerome Corsi, centers on a document thoroughly investigated by the FBI, DHS, DoJ,I.C.E., CIA and DoD, (Pentagon) amongst other Groovie Initials.

All of whom were under the direct command of “the decider” George Bitch.

None of them found any fault with the documentation.

So that leaves a couple of explanations, three in fact, all of them unpalatable to the Right Wing Para-Religious Cult.
The government investigative teams the Right Wing Cult keeps saying are “keeping us safe” at the expense of a few rights and freedoms that nobody important was using anyway are suddenly incompetent to detect a forged birth document, thus the billions upon billions of dollars spent on them were wasted.

OR

These same government teams were part of a vast Commie Liberal plot to put a Sleeper Agent in power, in which case the same scenario about their usefulness at the expense of Public Funds and those rights which nobody important was using anyway.

OR

More likely

The Birth Certificate is in fact valid and the only possible use the Right Wing Cult has for keeping the shit stirred is to wire up lunatics to attack other Americans

They’ve done a spectacular job of Domestic Terrorism so far.

April 15 tax protest

Many people will be protesting April 15th. Will you? Non-compliance is key.
 
Why are we paying income taxes to a thoroughly corrupt and malfeasant federal government? Why are we timid and compliant in the face of, and with the daily evidence of, a well funded predatory fascist military state, protecting the profits and property of the wealthy corporate class, closing in all around us and robbing us of our children’s futures?

Should you stop paying income tax? You decide.

The income tax “law” was based on a fraud of a kind of taxation called un-apportioned direct tax that supposedly became legal through the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. But………the Supreme court ruled since 1914, 3 times no less, that the 16th Amendment conferred no new tax of personal income on the individual and changed no existing taxing power or category, nor added a new category (called un-apportioned direct tax) that didn’t exist before the 16th Amendment. That’s the truth of it. Though tax lawyers and CPAs wail and moan that the 16th amendment is what makes us pay taxes. They are ignorant. They are complicit. They do not know the Supreme court rulings. The extent of the governments taxing powers do not include the un-incorporated individual earner. Your earnings are fruits of your labor, not taxable profits or capital gains.

Don’t believe me?

Here I’ve attached, a brief from a man who has put 9 years of his life into researching the lie and is calling the DOJ, certain Congress members and the IRS out on the rug for this deception. You can use the exact same information of the Supreme Court cases to fight this. And when enough of us do, the IRS and the income tax will go away. On personal income anyway………not corporate earnings.

But don’t fall for a “Fair Tax” (30% sales tax) proposal to replace the lost IRS revenue that some in the tax protest movement are pushing. Very regressive tax as the wealthy will avoid it and buy goods offshore or through tax trusts, shelters etc… and the working and middle classes will foot the bill. (The poor would be exempt from it.) But……. point is, we wouldn’t need to replace the revenue if the Feds collected the money transferred away to shelters and off shore accounts by the wealthy elites/corporations, and cut the Pentagons budget by 75%. Including closing most of the bases around the world. Or nationalized our coal, gas, oil and mineral reserves to become the property of all Americans. Citizens in Alaska receive a monthly dividend from their oil! All gold mined in this country becomes the property of 2 giant corporations when it should be all of ours.

Think the rich corporations are paying more in income tax? Of the income tax money collected, the corporations pay approx. 270 bil. Individuals pay approx. 700 bil. Sure there are a lot more individuals than corporations. But the mass of the individuals are working and middle class paying an illegal tax on their labor. And with inflation (crashing dollar value due to lower Fed interest rate and mass infusion of more worthless money into the economy) you’re losing the battle to hold on to any gains.

Are you a W4 refund taxpayer? That is, do you get a refund at the end of the year by claiming withholding? Wouldn’t it make more sense to get your entire paycheck without withholding, thereby your full worth? Lets make the Federal govt. figure out another way. Read the W4 withholding fraud below.

Still feel like paying your personal income taxes? If so, is it because you’re afraid of the IRS? Sure it is. They don’t want you to discover the Supreme court rulings that make the 16th amendment irrelevant. But they know the deception is soon coming to an end.

Check these videos. Tom Cryer, a lawyer in Shreveport, found not guilty of tax evasion recently. Hasn’t filed for 10 years.
http://www.truthattack.org/page4.php

Information from lawmens listserve:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/national_lawman/join

“The Michigan legislature is now in the process of repealing the state income tax, as they have been informed that the state income tax relies on the federal income tax being properly applied.”

A recent email:

Dear Lawmen and Others: The government has a headache and still it is trying to fool all the people all the time. Read the following:

The Justice Department, on the heels of a split verdict in its tax evasion prosecution of actor Wesley Snipes, is planning a crackdown on the so-called tax protester movement.

The protesters, or tax deniers, assert a constitutional right to avoid federal taxes, relying in part on century-old Supreme Court decisions. Their ranks are growing to include white-collar professionals, and they are costing the government millions in revenue, officials say.

“Too many people succumb to the fallacy, the illusion, that you don’t have to pay any tax under any set of conditions,” said Assistant Attorney General Nathan Hochman, the new head of the Justice Department’s tax division. “That is a growing problem.”

Notice how Mr. Hochman words his statement in an attempt to deceive the public. No one claims that we don’t have to pay any tax under any set of conditions! That is simply deception, lies and deceit. What Mr. Hochman is avoiding saying is that the income tax laws and the constitutional federal taxing powers are entwined into a massive scheme to deceive the American people. Mr. Hochman, we don’t pay you to lie to the American people and subvert our Constitution! The Constitutional taxing power of the federal government is limited to 1) Direct Apportioned taxes, 2) Excises, 3) Duties, and 4) Imposts. There are no other authorized taxing powers of the federal government, as has been stated in numerous Supreme Court rulings.

Mr. Hochman, are you trying to say that precedence law no longer applies if it is good case law and has never been overturned? Are you crazy? Mr. Hochman, where did you get your law degree? From Disney World? Are you trying to say that the Supreme Court of the U.S. did not have the authority to rule on these matters? Are you crazy?

Mr. Hochman, do you know that the Constitution is over 200 years old? Does that mean it is out of date in your eyes? Are you crazy? Are you saying that subject matter jurisdiction does not apply to the cases on income tax?

Mr. Hochman, do you know that the corporate income tax is a tax on the privilege of incorporation, and not a direct tax on the income of the corporation? Do you know that the corporate income tax is an excise tax? Do you know that a direct tax is a tax on the person, property or rights of an individual? Do you know that all direct taxes must be apportioned? Do you know that there has been no direct apportioned tax imposed on the general population since 1861? Do you know that Title 26 does not impose any direct apportioned tax on the general population?

Can you rebut any of these propositions, Mr. Hochman?

And if you find all this hard to believe, then why does 26 USC 7608 limit all enforcement authority of all domestic agents to ATF taxes? Why did the IRS have to stoop to out and out lies and claim that all persons, even private employees of private employers, must have deductions taken from their paychecks under the authority of 26 USC 3401-05? You are a lawyer, Mr. Hochman, and you can perfectly well read the regulations that explain who is an employee and who is not an employee, for the purposes of withholding.

Who are YOU, Mr. Hochman, to presume that your government position entitles you to deceive and defraud the American people? Are you crazy?

Have you ever heard of precedence decisions? Have you read the Anastasoff case of 2000, in which the 8th Circuit stated that the American Courts get their power from precedence? Do you know that? Do you believe that? If you don’t, then you should talk to a psychiatric counselor, not a legal counselor!

Let’s put our slogan out in front of the public so the government cannot suppress the information on direct un-apportioned taxes anymore. The government’s fraudulent claim that the prohibition was overturned by the 16th Amendment, is rebutted by the STEWARD case, 24 years after the 16th Amendment was passed. Nothing has changed that since 1937.The last direct apportioned tax was in 1861.

Everyone should put the slogan on direct taxes on their signature lines. That is the issue.
No direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937)

A recent email:
To make a provable case, just look at the STEWARD case (1937), 24 years after the passage of the 16th Amendment.
“Steward” ruled that the sovereign has the authority to impose 1) Direct Taxes with “apportionment”, 2) Excises, 3) Duties, and 4) Imposts. Then Stewart goes further to state that there are NO other taxing powers, even though there have been many attempts to claim there was another taxing power given to the sovereign. The Court stated that not in a hundred years has there been such a taxing power discovered. All federal taxes must fall into one of the four classes.

The Appeals Judge in my case made a false statement in his ruling. He said that Conces claims that the government cannot levy a tax on individuals and non-incorporated businesses. He is DEAD wrong! I didn’t say that. The Supreme Court said first, that individuals could always be taxed from the very beginning, but if it was a direct tax, it must be apportioned. The last apportioned tax was in 1861.