Features Oct 17, 2012 at 4:00 am

A Third Northwest Activist Who Hasn’t Been Accused of a Crime Is Sent to Federal Prison

Imprisoned for not “exercising a right.”

Comments

1
why doesn't she just testify that her memory is a little foggy? maybe she was hit in the head by a cop's baton and lost her memory from the event? divert, subvert.
2
"The day after Plante was sent to prison, activists in Portland organized a 'grand jury resisters solidarity march,' during which they smashed out the windows of four banks: Chase, Umpqua, US Bank, and Wells Fargo"

Way to go, activists... Put more of your friends & family in line to be subpoenaed and/or jailed for your actions.

Hearts & minds won't be won this way... it just makes the movement look more & more like selfish, tantrum-throwing children without the vocabulary to articulate their angst in any meaningful way.
3
With this sort of villiany, public awareness isn't enough. Too many people just don't care. If Martin Luther King didn't March as well as make speeches, no civil rights bill back in the 1970's. I think they need to do more...ALOT MORE!
4
if the cause is compelling perhaps it is better to ask what you yourself should do instead of always passing the buck to the theoretical 'they'. they are doing what they can, what will you do? check out grand jury resistance dot org
5
Way to go, Stranger. This article and the smear piece on domestic violence in our judicial system shows you know nothing about the law and how our system works.
6
AHAHAHAHA!!!

What, can't blame this on Bush?

Call Mr. Holder, maybe he'll help you out as much as he has Pvt. Manning.
7
The people who commit these acts of vandalism aren't protestors, they are... well vandals. That said, the government is going overboard with this. This is not justice.

She should have the right to refuse immunity, if she'd rather plead the fifth. If she is later found to have protected a criminal, she should do time.
8
The "right to remain silent", as defined by Miranda, is followed by "anything that you say can be used against you in a court of law". Absent the threat of self-recrimination, there is no "right to remain silent". Not in the bill of rights, not in Miranda. Witnesses to crimes, or persons having knowledge of such can be compelled to testify or held in contempt of court. Get your facts straight.
9
Slam, voting for Nader wouldn't have made this situation any better. The legal system is never reformed by supporting doomed third-party candidates that only let the most right-wing ticket possible get in.

The current situation could only have been worse for everyone, INCLUDING BRADLEY MANNING(who is a political prisoner and should be released immediately)if Ralph had taken 15% and McCain had been elected with the 46% he did get-the best possible showing Ralph could have made.

SO give it a freaking rest. Yes, Obama hasn't been as good as he could have been...but nothing would be better now if the left had left McCain in(and probably left us with President Palin by now, since McCain would never have survived his entire first term)in the name of "the long term".

10
If you vandalize or know someone who has committed a crime, you're a subject to the law. The Courts have spoken. She will sweat it out in jail until she realizes that her accomplices are criminals and should be tried for their crimes against Seattle. Why do these idiotic vandals think that by breaking windows and destroying property will bring down the world economy of trade? You are only hurting your own community and putting fear into your neighbors. But this woman Plante will confess her crimes and those of her other criminal friends. Otherwise she is going to get very strong lifting those weights in jail..
11
I found myself in a similar situation once when a federal prosecutor wanted access to my sources for an article I wrote about a shooting. Luckily, I was able to get pro bono counsel and they negotiated a deal - I testified but did not reveal any sources who had not already agreed to come forward.

What I wonder is this: in my case, the shooting I wrote about involved a felon, and therefore the case was a felony case. My attorneys told me that, should I resist a motion to compel in a felony case, I would not just be thrown in jail, I would also become a felon. No trial, no conviction, do not collect $200, go straight to being a felon. I would lose the right to vote in some places, lose the ability to live in many apartments, lose the ability to get a security clearance and probably many jobs (outside of journalism, anyway), and much more. That was scarier to me than jail.

So, I wonder: does the same thing apply here? On top of being thrown in jail for resisting a motion to compel, will Plante and the others now also be felons? (I'm assuming it's felony-level because federal prosecutors are involved, but please correct me if I'm wrong.) If so, the damage here goes well beyond simple imprisonment for up to 18 months. This will follow them for the rest of their lives.
12
I found myself in a similar situation once when a federal prosecutor wanted access to my sources for an article I wrote about a shooting. Luckily, I was able to get pro bono counsel and they negotiated a deal - I testified but did not reveal any sources who had not already agreed to come forward.

What I wonder is this: in my case, the shooting I wrote about involved a felon, and therefore the case was a felony case. My attorneys told me that, should I resist a motion to compel in a felony case, I would not just be thrown in jail, I would also become a felon. No trial, no conviction, do not collect $200, go straight to being a felon. I would lose the right to vote in some places, lose the ability to live in many apartments, lose the ability to get a security clearance and probably many jobs (outside of journalism, anyway), and much more. That was scarier to me than jail.

So, I wonder: does the same thing apply here? On top of being thrown in jail for resisting a motion to compel, will Plante and the others now also be felons? (I'm assuming it's felony-level because federal prosecutors are involved, but please correct me if I'm wrong.) If so, the damage here goes well beyond simple imprisonment for up to 18 months. This will follow them for the rest of their lives.
13
Gah sorry about the double post!
14
The Stranger really needs a legal reporing staff. Mr. Kiley just doesn't seem to understand the Grand Jury process or the 5th Amdt. This piece isn't nearly as confused as the Stranger's reportage on SCOTUS / appeals cases, which are generally just a swampy morass of ingnorance. Misreporting is worse than not reporting at all.
15
http://leahxvx.tumblr.com/post/338964733…

She's free.
16
Good for her. Sticking to your beliefs has become an uncommon occurrence. We should all support her and arrange time to visit her to provide words of encouragement.
17
#16, I don't think she was sprung because she stuck to her beliefs. The other two remain in jail. I suspect the one was sprung because she's a lunatic.
18
#17, How did you come up to 'suspect' her with the psychological diagnosis of lunatic? I can't remember reading anything, that drew me to that conclusion. Can you direct me the the article(s) that help you to 'suspect she's a lunatic'?
19
I am a fan of the stranger, but this article sets a very poor standard. No quotes from anyone this article vilifies. No indication that they would not talk to you. There aren't even any quotes from anyone with a different point of view.

I sure many legal experts would tell you the is a legal right against *self* incrimination. You don't have the right to shield the crimes of others because you believe those crimes are just. You have an obligation to tell the truth.
20
#19, the Stranger doesn't "do" journalism. It's a parody pyublication, similar to The Onion.
21
Check out all the Unregistered Comments in this thread ––Clearly the actions by federal prosecutors and the rest of the Department of Justice (with their associates) have had the desired effect: scare the shit out of people. Smashing federal property doesn't advance public discourse, but an overarching Constitutional principle calls for greater scrutiny from Attorney General Eric Holder and former Constitutional Law Professor Barack Obama. In the balance are the further erosion of the credibility of the justice system in general and the current administration's commitment in particular. Oh yeah, and a bunch of people in jail that should never have spent a single night in jail, at least not for refusing to sign the proverbial confessions under coercion.
22
The issue here is not whether this young woman has information that would lead to the indictment of a brave group of stick-wielding, attention-starved chumps. The issue is the bastardization of the Grand Jury system and the need to either fix it or jettison the entire mess. The Grand Jury was wisely introduced to U.S. courts with the intent of protecting citizens against unfair prosecution, but they have morphed into a modern-day version of the Spanish Inquisition - exactly the opposite of the founding fathers intent. The U.S. is the only nation remaining that maintains the Grand Jury system and its continued use is an embarrassment.
23
Leah has been released. Can we keep coverage of the other two circulating?
24
@17: Or because she's a skinny, white, cis-gendered person who greatly appealed to the masses.

There are still two people in jail for absolutely no good reason.
25
Turns out there are consequences for breaking other people's shit.

26
@25
How lucky for you, the penalties are not as harsh for improper use of an apostrophe.
27
@22 has it right.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.