Slashdot Mirror
Witness In Secret WikiLeaks Grand Jury Hearing Posts Transcript of Questioning
Sparrowvsrevolution writes "A year ago, free information advocate and Bradley Manning supporter David House was subpoenaed to testify in the grand jury investigation of WikiLeaks that's taking place in Alexandria, Virginia. Now he's released a transcript of his interrogation that he produced by taking handwritten notes on a legal pad and handing pages to his lawyer during their consultations. Though House pled the fifth and didn't tell the prosecutors much, the notes show the prosecution attorneys focusing their questions on Boston-area hackers as well as Tor developer and WikiLeaks supporter Jacob Appelbaum."
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.
David House: Let me consult with my attorney.
[House leaves the grand jury room and returns one minute later]
David House: My lawyer asks that you refer all questions about notes to him.
It would seem that the rule in question now puts him in contempt of court? It appears to explicitly mention what is happening here. I wonder what his lawyer told him about taking these notes and then releasing them.
My work here is dung.
We get it: powerful, corrupt people are annoyed that stuff about them is being revealed to the world, and they want to go through the justice theatre to silence those who leak information.
If you play them at their game, they win.
I INVOKE!
Investigative journalism is the right way to make public information that you think the should be known. Being a smart ass at a grand jury investigation is the wrong way.
Articles are about the people who ran the infrastructure, not what was leaked.
Great move House. That's one for the good guys, and not for the globalist.
I think he did this just to get his name clear .....i'd be willing to bet he has probably been the gorilla in the room at their hacker club or collective whatever the kids call it these days.
A group of leaders who are corrupt and stick-to-the-rules, versus House? I think I've seen this somewhere before....
I'm more curious as to what Jacob Appelbaum's legal recourse in this is. Clearly he is being targeted by the government for persecution/prosecution. But how can he prove it when all he has is (presumably) illegal evidence? Just another example of how insidious these secret courts/investigations/etc. really are. A citizen is being targeted for persecution for presumably legal activities, and for anyone to even REVEAL that he's being targeted is illegal.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
I'm gonna go on a limb here, Grand Jury Proceedings being secret is ok. All a Grand Jury can do is get you indicted. It isn't a conviction, it isn't a secret trial. I don't think this process is violative of our civil rights.
There was a saying "a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich". Meaning the burden of proof is so low, its not usually hard to get an indictment. Think of it like a pre-charge discovery process, where only the prosecutor gets to participate, and the Jury is there to make sure he doesn't go too far.
Since he didn't answer anything.
Which is awesome, needless to say - here is clearly someone who doesn't take crap from anyone, and gives not an inch more to authority than he is legally obligated.
IANAL either, but imagine a proceeding in which anything that the prosecution writes down or records is considered evidence while anything that the defense writes down is considered contempt of court.
If the prosecution revealed secrets to Mr House, he is not under any obligation to keep them. If Mr. House is found to be breaking the law at the level of the Supreme Court by taking notes at his own interrogation, then the US has just passed into the domain of a fascist state. Similarly, the prosecution has no right to coerce Mr. House to keep the interrogation secret as it would set a precedent for future abuse.
I predict that there will be no charges over the transcript, and if there are, they will be thrown out of court. Great work, House. You have wisely set an example for all who are placed into a similar situation.
1) Get an attorney
2) Exercise your 5th amendment rights. Don't respond to any questions.
3) Record everything
4) Make the record public
For those who want the opinion of an actual attorney:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
again i say it
from hackers go fuck yourself
Be careful here. If, say, you are in a divorce with your wife, do you want the world to know the gory details?
This does not hold water. The marriage of two private people is a private matter. If it's celebrities there might be an interested public. That's not public interest. The decisions made in court about that divorce does not affect the public. If a court case affects the public, then there is public interest.
This is a fascinating way of looking at it. It's very consistent, too.
There is a very strong movement within about half of US's voters, to expand the role of government to further manage marriage. And even if that expansion does not succeed, their rhetoric constantly and consistently speaks of marriage as a public institution, and where third parties and the public at large, have a compelling interest in other people's marriage. Their position is that marriage is not merely a relationship between two people; that it's a special relationship between two people and everyone one else too.
Many of us blow these them off as crackpots, but "many" is only about half; many (also about half!) vote for this point of view. You might not share the opinion, but it IS mainstream opinion that marriage is public, and is something that needs government's hand.
That means it's not necessarily insane that divorce details be public.
Keep in mind, though, that the anti-privatization-of-marriage faction is really arguing for tighter regulation; transparency itself, hasn't been one of their talking points. It may be that part of the reason they want more government involvement would even be to increase secrecy. If, for example, we use government to take away gay's freedom to marry one another, that could be a means, to the end of silencing gays who talk about their marriages. That's not crazy either, as the movement to expand government's role in marriage did happen in concert with gays becoming more open, sharing more with the public.
His oaths of secrecy are subservient to that.
If this was not possible, then the oaths of the whistleblowers who rioted against the lawful Crown of England would be as despicable as you wish Manning to be treated.
Your founding fathers, on the other hand, are almost universally revered (and the lack of reverence only exists by people who do not want to hear anything aginst their christian faith from the founding fathers, therefore pretend they don't even exist).
Best quote from article:
i understand releasing any aspect of the discussions no matter the route, is a felony.
the obvious exception is the finding or indictments that result.
Can't take his word for anything.
He's (arguably) transcribing the questions as they are asked and noting his own responses. He is not transcribing anything from a recording. This restriction is clearly intended to prevent a person who prepares a transcript from the recording at a later date from being able to reveal anything. Which is entirely reasonable, although I suspect that in most cases it's more a matter of someone comparing the transcript made at the time with what was on the tape. (At least that's how it worked when I have given testimony. And FWIW, it's been my experience that in relatively relaxed settings like depositions stenographers appreciate it when you spell any unusual technical terms you're using.)
Also look at the subsequent section regarding secrecy, where the person giving the testimony is conspicuous by their absence.
Method and Techniques.
Rich this is.
War Wining Information for sure.
Usable in many other 'arenas' ... space and time.
November looms large ... and a gallows for the President.
Thank you so much.
LoL
So the wikileaks testimony was...leaked? Is that leakage squared?
Grar II