Posted on May 31 2019
Happy “deza” Friday Contempt-Chelsea
As previously discussed in this Chelsea Manning entry from a few days ago, I stated I’d update you, when warranted. It is now warranted. I don’t know the reason for the delay in updating to Manning’s Grand Jury Docket, but nonetheless let’s go ahead and dissect her most recent filing
In non-legalese it appears Manning is attempting to put a “cap” on her term of imprisonment for Contempt. The cap Manning has “formally” requested is no more than 18-months. In my opinion this is a strategic game of chicken. The 18 months isn’t a random time frame. At all. 18 months is a strategic end run on Manning’s part. What you may not know is when Grand Juries are empaneled/seated they have a “term” - that “term” in EDVA.
I now refer you to page 51 of the December 2018 Local Rules, which reads in part:
More precisely I now refer you to the EDVA-Alexandria Rules of Grand Jury, specifically the “term”. The EDVA Jury FAQ, which reads:
In Alexandria, grand jurors serve six to 18 months. In Newport News and Norfolk, they serve for 12 months. In Richmond, they serve for 12 to 18 months. In all jurisdictions, they generally meet only one to three consecutive days per month. The term of grand juries can be extended by order of the Court.
Meaning the Court (properly and lawfully) found Manning in Contempt and as such Ordered Manning in to custody. You should also know that Manning was released from Alexandria Detention Center on May 9, 2019. As the previous EDVA-Alexandria Grand Jury’s term had expired. On May 8, 2019 Manning, through her counsel received another Grand Jury Subpoena.
The remedy here is incredibly simple, Manning simply needs to comply with the lawful Grand Jury Subpoena. Given that the Military under threat of Courts-martial ordered Manning to comply with the Grand Jury Subpoena. The Army and the Government collectively granted Manning “derivative immunity” meaning that Manning’s Grand Jury testimony could not be used against her. Yet Manning refused.
It is also worth pointing out on page one, paragraph one under Preliminary Statement is entirely dishonest. Manning was original ordered to give Grand Jury Testimony months before the March 6, 2019 date.
Immunity was conferred upon her, stripping her of her 5th Amendment rights against compelled self-incrimination. After litigation and denial of various motions to quash, she was brought before the grand jury, and refused to give testimony.
I now refer you back to my previous entry, where I discussed at length the US Army Order (which included “derivative immunity) and Government also granting Manning Immunity. I pulled down the relevant previous discussion from the original entry. See below:
What I can’t square is, on March 1, 2019 Manning was ordered (under of threat of “empowered to convene general courts-martial” again that is clear and precise language from an Army Major General. Why did Manning continue to defy the lawful Grand Jury subpoena?
I know that I’ve previously invoked the “running down the clock” litigation strategy and it might be difficult to comprehend the meaning and totality. In simpler terms of your “defense strategy” is to run the clock down, eventually that clock restarts. Case in point on page 2 of Manning’s May 29, 2019 Motion. Again to emphasis the point that some might conflate and confuse: On May 8, 2019 Manning was served a new Subpoena and she ultimately presented herself to the Grand Jury on May 16, 2019 and concurrently Moved to Quash the May 2019 Subpoena
Moving on to Page 3 of Manning’s filing. This is why I say Manning is playing a litigation game of chicken. While Grand Jurors, the Prosecutors are bound by the cloak of secrecy & confidentiality of Grand Jury proceedings, witnesses are not bound by the aforementioned, at all. Don’t be fooled, Manning and her Counsel know exactly what they are doing. And frankly it’s offensive:
The next pages are a recitation of Manning’s previous arguments, which the Court previously found unpersuasive. So it’s unclear to me why Manning & Counsel would regurgitate the same arguments that previously failed.
In sum total Manning’s new argument is, since the Government recently charged Assange in the Superseding Indictment that Manning should be freed and is no longer in Contempt. But if you had paid really close attention to the US Army’s March 1 2019 Order & Derivative Immunity where I highlighted a VERY specific sentence. Most people didn’t catch what I highlighted and underlined - but then again those are the same people who “claim” I’m not a “paralegal” rather I’m a bored housewife that lays on my chaise lounge stuffing bon bons in my calorie hole. /snort
I order you to cooperate fully with the order issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, to appear and testify fully, completely and truthfully before the aforementioned Grand Jury proceedings, and you shall provide full, complete and truthful information in regard to any other proceedings ancillary* to the above-captloned proceeding. (emphasis added)
Although do you know what the Government hasn’t charged Manning with nor granted immunity for?
And given that Manning’s May 29, 2019 Motion disclosed (boy what I would give to have the actual transcript of aforementioned May 16, 2019 Hearing)...again not to be a repeating record but this is the same exact argument Manning previously used and both the EDVA-Alexandria and 4thCCOAs found unpersuasive. So why continue using a known failed and flawed argument?
After being satisfied by the government’s limited denials of certain kinds of surveillance, and after admitting that post-indictment subpoenas may be suspect, the Court denied Ms. Manning’s motions to disclose electronic surveillance and to quash the subpoena on the basis that it was an abuse of process. Ms. Manning then reiterated her refusal to give testimony before any grand jury. (emphasis added)
One has to wonder if Assange and Manning are communicating with each other and if so, how soon will each face an Indictment or in Assange’s case another superseding Indictment for:
And lastly the Appellate Options for Manning are extremely limited, given earlier this month the 4thCCOAs AFFIRMED the District Court’s Contempt Ruling and subsequently thereafter issued a MANDATE. That was after the April 22, 2019 4thCCOAs Order in Manning’s Appeal, as highlighted below:
While you're here, throw us a bone.
Mad Dog is thrilled to have Spicy in our PAC(k). We are proud to provide a space for her tireless, hard hitting, in-depth investigations. But we can’t do it without you.
Our numbers are growing. Our voices are being heard. Our campaigns are making a difference. Help us, and Spicy, continue to fight the good fight. Consider a donation to help support the work of Mad Dog PAC today.