Win for First Amendment as a Fearful U.S. Slouches into 2018

Vicious police and malicious prosecutors target Americans
at Inauguration Day protests on Jan 20, 2017.

J20 Resistance, Jennifer Armento, Oliver Harris, Brittne Lawson, Michelle Macchio, Christina Simmons and Alexei Wood Win Victory Against Repressive U.S. Government

News from D.C. this week reports the acquittal of six young Americans protesting fascism and state capitalism, two defining features of our country, (The Intercept, In These Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post).

The six Americans in federal court were charged with multiple felonies and faced decades in prison not for any acts they allegedly committed. Rather, federal indictments and government-advanced trial arguments assert mere attendance at, and proximity to an Inauguration Day demonstration perforce makes the defendants responsible for all the acts of all other attendees.

Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel? This is America.

In defiance of reason, at trial, asst U.S. Attorney Jennifer Kerkhof advanced the novel legal theory that any American attending a demonstration is criminally responsible for the actions, such as criminal vandalism by others, of all other attendees. Not only logically absurd—see the fallacy of the undistributed middle—Kerkhof's group liability-conspiracy argument is intended to chill future protests against President* Trump and others occupying public office in D.C.

Any criminal convictions would likely be overturned in federal appellate court but nevertheless the enormous costs incurred to resist a federal prosecution make this act of malice a stunning miscarriage of justice, no matter the innocent verdicts.

Nearly 200 more Americans still face trial in the courtroom of the Constitutionally odious and contemptible Judge Lynn Leibovitz, the presiding judge who let this J-20 trial proceed.

One trial juror has spoken publicly.

The juror who gave his first name of Steve said of the non-guilty verdict, (reported in the media collective Unicorn Riot):

It was not a close call. The prosecution admitted the morning of day one that they would present no evidence that any of the defendants committed any acts of violence or any vandalism.

From that point, before the defense ever uttered a sound, it was clear to me that ultimately we would find everyone not guilty. And while there was a great deal of careful discussion among the jurors, it ultimately at no point was … did it seem even possible that a guilty verdict would come down.

This was not close.

This is a malicious prosecution, but at this moment malicious prosecutions are standard operating procedure in the United States.

Be concerned.

First Amendment Win Against United States

Six J20 protesters win First Amendment case in D.C

Congrats and thank you to defendants Jennifer Armento, Oliver Harris, Brittne Lawson, Michelle Macchio, Christina Simmons and Alexei Wood 

The First Amendment won today in Washington D.C., (Washington Post, Huffington Post).

But this is a war that should not have been waged by a tyrannical United States Attorney's Office and unthinking police against Americans protesting and chronicling a demonstration on Jan 20, 2017.

This is a trial that the cowardly Judge Lynn Leibovitz, the presiding judge, should not have allowed to proceed.

From the Independent:

Six defendants facing decades in prison for protesting Donald Trump’s inauguration have been found not guilty, in a trial that raised serious questions about First Amendment rights in the age of Trump.

A jury in Washington, DC, cleared the defendants of all seven charges against them, which included rioting and multiple counts of property destruction. The defendants were the first of nearly 200 people due to stand trial for their involvement in the 20 January protests.

Jude Ortiz, a member of the Defend J20 team that mobilised to support the defendants, called the decision “a victory for political organising”.

"The prosecutor was trying to claim political organising was conspiracy,” Mr Oritz told The Independent. "And these acquittals show that that logic is not being bought."
---

Criminalizing free speech is actually not the American way.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Attorney's office vows to proceed with nearly 200 more prosecutions against other protesters.

You see why people demonstrate for freedom?

Inauguration Day Protests Case Is Injury to First Amendment Speech, Free Press and Assembly Rights

Alexei Wood stands outside the D.C. Court of Appeals
on Nov. 14, 2017, across from the D.C. Superior Court
where his case is being heard in Washington on Nov. 14,
2017. Wood was arrested while covering the DisruptJ20
protest on Inauguration Day. Copy and image are from
The Intercept.

First Amendment freedoms at trial in D.C. courtroom as journalists and protesters, whom President* Trump regards as enemies, face years in prison for lawful and long-protected activity in J20-DisruptJ20 demonstrations held on Inauguration Day

Day two of jury deliberations today

No, America is not the land of the free and home of the brave.

Certainly not in the courtroom of Judge Lynn Leibovitz, a typically cowardly and less-than-learned jurist gaping in the judicial bureaucracy of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Leibovitz' presiding over this case is a continuing disgrace to American jurisprudence, as this judge has not to this point dismissed this political prosecution against Americans protesting the inauguration of the openly fascist president, Donald Trump.

Report Ryan J. Reilly and Christopher Mathias in an overview of the case in the Huffington Post:

An American photojournalist swept up in a mass arrest of hundreds of demonstrators conducted by security forces in the nation’s capital earlier this year during a protest of a regime change ceremony will face a criminal trial here, (in D.C.), Monday.

Alexei Wood, a 37-year-old freelance photojournalist based in the American southwest, has been charged with multiple felonies. If found guilty, he could face decades inside a mammoth prison system in the world’s most incarcerated nation.

Wood was one of more than 200 citizens captured en masse by police forces quelling demonstrations held at the same time as President Donald Trump’s inauguration. Just weeks before, the tough-talking real estate magnate and reality television star shocked the nation’s political class when his rightward, populist campaign beat out that of a candidate from America’s predominant center-left political dynasty.

The continued prosecution of Wood and nearly 200 protesters has raised alarm among many who worry it will have a chilling effect on dissent in America, a country that holds itself up as a beacon of free speech and political expression.

As police and state disruption of citizens exercising free speech rights has become normalized, the J20 case would in a country dedicated to liberties of its citizens become the focus of saturation media  coverage.

Not so today as First Amendment liberties remain unpopular in the political culture and broadly speaking among those serving in government.

Notes Eoin Higgins in The Intercept:

[The prosecution of Wood and other defendants] is alarming as a reflection of the government’s attempt to define — and criminalize — journalism, but the case as a whole also speaks to the government’s attempt to undermine the First Amendment right to political speech. 'The government is prosecuting this case as though DisruptJ20' — the name given to the protest — 'were a run-of-the-mill criminal conspiracy, where the only objective is criminal in nature, rather than a political demonstration designed to make a statement about the current administration,' Shana Knizhnik, an attorney with the ACLU-DC, told The Intercept in an email. 'This framing undermines the fundamental principles of the First Amendment.'

Stay informed on developments in the Alexei Wood, J20, Inauguration Day First Amendment case.

From the New York Times:

During the protests, the Washington Metropolitan Police seemingly ignored journalists who presented their credentials, including Mr. Wood, who is seen flashing a press badge in the video.

'The police used the actions of a few window breakers as an excuse of a mass roundup,' said Scott Michelman, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington.

The other journalists arrested at K and 12th Streets on Jan. 20 were Evan Engel, a senior producer at Vocativ; Jack Keller, a producer of the web documentary series 'Story of America'; Matthew Hopard, a freelance photojournalist whose work has been published by The New York Times and Fox News; Alexander Stokes, an independent journalist who has a show on a public access news channel in Albany; Cheney Orr, a freelance photographer; Alexander Rubinstein, a reporter with RT America; and Shay Horse, a freelance photojournalist whose work has been published by Rolling Stone, Al Jazeera America and other outlets. 

Land of the free.

Support Fox News Washington Correspondent, James Rosen and Stephen Jin-Woo Kim

Is prior restraint from the Obama administration just around
the corner, are intimidation and persecution enough?

Zealous, careerist-minded US DoJ attorneys and the mindless continuation of the worst aspects of the War on Terror may bring down the legacy of another president, just as surely as the Vietnam War brought down Johnson and Nixon

The Washington Post has the sad story that the Fourth Amendment and First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press are imperiled in the United States, specifically in the case of Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, the U.S. DoJ, and the work of journalist, James Rosen.

The Kim/Rosen revelations follow the AP and seizure of phone records story.

From Mr. Kim's legal defense website, reads the statement from counsel, Abbe D. Lowell:

On August 27, 2010 the Justice Department and U.S. Attorney’s office charged Stephen Kim with illegally disclosing national defense information (classified information) to someone [Fox's James Rosen] in the media. The government has not alleged that Stephen gave away any document, that he was paid to do anything, that he stole the information, or that he acted in secret. It does not allege that Stephen was a spy or that he acted to assist an enemy of the United States. And, it does not allege that Stephen engaged in a pattern of misconduct. Rather, the case against Stephen Kim seems to be based on a prosecutor’s theory that Stephen talked to someone in the media about a topic of current events and – in that one and only conversation – disclosed classified information. It is a 'leak' case. Along with many who have commented, we think an unfounded one.

Notes Ann E. Marimow in The Post:

The case also raises new concerns among critics of government secrecy about the possible stifling effect of these investigations on a critical element of press freedom: the exchange of information between reporters and their sources.

No one believes the Tea Party much cares about or understands constitutional rights. That's unfortunate.

Because what is happening under President Obama and Eric Holder's DoJ shows the depths to which the United States has fallen, now using the Espionage Act as its crusading, anti-terror tool in the administration's rapacious project against government leakers.

This is a scandal: Obama's war on whistleblowers.

Ask Bradley Manning. Or, as Eli Lake correctly characterizes this: "Obama's war on jounrnalism."

Writes Glenn Greewald in The Guardian:

But what makes this revelation particularly disturbing is that the DOJ, in order to get this search warrant, insisted that not only Kim, but also Rosen - the journalist - committed serious crimes. The DOJ specifically argued that by encouraging his source to disclose classified information - something investigative journalists do every day - Rosen himself broke the law. Describing an affidavit from FBI agent Reginald Reyes filed by the DOJ, the Post reports [emphasis added]:

"Reyes wrote that there was evidence Rosen had broken the law, 'at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator'. That fact distinguishes his case from the probe of the AP, in which the news organization is not the likely target. Using italics for emphasis, Reyes explained how Rosen allegedly used a 'covert communications plan' and quoted from an e-mail exchange between Rosen and Kim that seems to describe a secret system for passing along information. . . . However, it remains an open question whether it's ever illegal, given the First Amendment's protection of press freedom, for a reporter to solicit information. No reporter, including Rosen, has been prosecuted for doing so."

Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information. That fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the US government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the US government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ - that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for "soliciting" the disclosure of classified information - is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself. These latest revelations show that this is not just a theory but one put into practice, as the Obama DOJ submitted court documents accusing a journalist of committing crimes by doing this.

Hey Mr. President, NO Trashing Media Shield Bill

Whether it's political posturing or actual policy prescriptions, President Obama's attacks on the bill protecting reporters’ confidentiality are shameful and undemocratic.

Lisa Graves at the Center for Media and Democracy has a piece explaining why, if the point were not glaringly obvious, our government is generally not to be trusted with information management and that our fellow citizens are the rightful custodians of information.

It's a classical liberal thing vis a vis a national security state claim. Graves' piece, Government Lied about National Security Letters and the Patriot Act, is a must-read.

President Obama, what are you thinking? Are you thinking? We elected you in part for an open government, not to be only sort of like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.