Grand Jury Refusers Katherine Olejnik and Matthew Duran Are Free

Comments

1
Your tags are showing.
2
'bout bloody time.
3
brendan, can you name your source? YAYYYY
4
This made my day - but I suppose I should hold the happiness until they're actually out.
5
My source was attorney Kim Gordon, who also sent me Judge Jones's ruling.
6
Time to raise a fucking glass. Those brave souls, I hope they sue the state for compensation for the part of their lives that they'll never get back. And I hope we all have a chance to see them on the outside.
7
I have zero sympathy for these two nor for their idiotic cause, but this is the right decision. The aim is to compel testimony and it is clear that these two do not take their civic responsibilities seriously. Now hopefully we can never hear about them again.
8
Now to get Maddy out of there! Yessss!
9
good news! awesome work, brendan, on the continued coverage!
10
@7 - Maybe solitary confinement should never be used to compel irrelevant testimony, regardless of whether they're damn long-haired hippie kids who don't know things worked in your day?

Shake your fist harder! Those damn kids are out of prison and are gonna walk all over your lawn!
11
GREAT!!!

However, the problem of a system that can lock citizens up without trail or due process of law remains.
12
@10 Or maybe people should just answer lawfully asked questions. I don't think catching the people who trashed my town is irrelevant. Especially when it was politically motivated, as such douchebaggery cheapens the work of people actually trying to make things better the right way.

I could careless who they are. The ability to compel testimony is central to a functioning judicial system be it to go after asshole anarchist rioters or asshole rapists.

That is nice that they think they are exempt from this responsibility, but they are not.
13
This is very, very, very good news.
14
Time for more smashy smashy girls?
15
This is awesome, thanks for the continued coverage. As an anarchist, I do not trust the states judges but I have to admit, this judge really made the prosecution look like a bunch of tools.

Good job support team and everyone!!! Awesome!
16
If I'm ever ordered to testify about other people's political beliefs under threat of imprisonment, I hope I have the strength that these people are displaying. Torturing people with solitary confinement in an effort to coerce them into testifying is barbaric.

Thanks for reporting on this, Brendan.
17
@7, 12: I agree with you, and I'm always perplexed at how anarchists "choose not to participate" and yet benefit as much as everyone else from "the system", e.g. social security, food stamps, unemployment, minimum wage, etc etc ad infinitum.
18
You have the right to remain silent except you don't
19
My husband took the day off to go to the hearing, but I guess we'll spend it CELEBRATING!!!! Congrats to all the support people, but THE MOST RESPECT TO CATE-O & MATT.

Maddy up next!
20
I hope these kids sue the Fed and win big.
21
@7/@12 you should re-read the constitution. The gov't is not supposed to be allowed to "compel" testimony that is either protected by the first amendment (beliefs/speech) NOR self incrimination. You are thinking of a fascist country, not a democratic republic. Call my naive for believing otherwise, but I was still hoping we avoid the plutocratic fascist police state you so lazily admire.
23
@7/@12 you should re-read the constitution. The gov't is not supposed to be allowed to "compel" testimony that is either protected by the first amendment (beliefs/speech) NOR self incrimination. You are thinking of a fascist country, not a democratic republic. Call me naive for believing otherwise, but I was still hoping we avoid the plutocratic fascist police state you so lazily admire.

No. I am not an anarchist. But people like you are blind, creepy consumers of the corporate police state. You could at least get your facts and law straight. But that would require not being blind and hungry at the trough of your privileges over other people's rights.
24
look, all i know is that 5 of us did the first road blockade for the first mayday ever in olympia. right in front of the police. what are they gonna do, shoot me? its time for the cops to do some pee-pee in the cup is what i am saying. i think they are all juicing and (still) jerking off to the 1971 lewis powell memo. thats how they are pulling it all off so to speak.
26
@18 and @23 The right to remain silent only applies to self incrimination. There is no general right to not give testimony only a limited right to not give testimony against yourself. Hence why these two were granted immunity. Might want to try rereading it again yourself.

Your nonsense about a police state is silly at best.Anarchist delusions of self importance notwithstanding, no one gives a shit about their beliefs. These two had information on people who committed legitimate crimes. They have an obligation to share that information. That's it.

But for their violence no one would pay them any regard. Which, of course, is why they do it so instead of being completely irrelevant, they can act like the big bad state is oppressing them for their beliefs.
27
I am so glad that our strapped judicial system just spent greater than 3 million dollars to get to the bottom of the broken bank window. I wished they would spend ten bucks trying to get the crackhead who broke my car window.
28
Giffy doesn't dissappoint in perpetually being full of shit. Because nothing proves "anarchists" wrong like blind faith in the good judgement of the state.
29
My husband has been in Immigration Detention for 8 months after living in the US for 32 years, but he has no rights to due process or an attorney. But oh well...he is part of the invisible prisoners that no one cares about. If you're not White you're not Right.

On another note, I am glad for these individuals....
30
@28 This has nothing to do with what anarchists believe, nor how right or wrong they are.

It is simply about the legitimate need for the justice system to get the information it needs to determine guilt or innocence. I doubt people would be so quick to make this a rights issue if it was a frat brother with information on a date rape or a banker with information on financial fraud. Either it's something the state can do or its not, and you can't pick and choose based on how sympathetic you happen to find the witness or your own opinion on how serious you think the crime is.
31
I'm glad they were confined, and I'm glad they've been released. To read in the judge's ruling that it had been shown the confinement was no longer coercive, and therefore pointless to continue, is very good news.
32
@30 And just how many frat-bro's have ever been confined at the federal detention center in Sea-Tac for withholding vital evidence in a fraternity rape case?

We'll wait while you google it.

Just kidding! We're not waiting for you. There's no point.
33
@32 No idea. I know they get questioned with some frequency. But most people don't refuse to testify, they just lie, and proving they are lying is usually as hard as proving the underlying crime.
34
@30 Lol. Nice red herring analogues but they are flimsy. A frat bro *may have* material evidence of a rape. These people, not present at the scene of the crime, were questioned based on political beliefs not at all relevant to the crime.

The grand jury is not the prototype for a Star Chamber, gif. And it shouldn't be used as such. The legitimate need to determine innocence went right out the door when the Feds used your very dear justice system for a witch hunt based on *supposed* political beliefs of the non-defendants.

They obviously can't use real police work to prove their case, so they were hoping that intimidation of citizens would work.
35
You can have knowledge of a crime or the criminals who did it without actually being there.
36
@34

I sort of doubt these particular Grand Jury refusers would be pleased with your characterization of them as "citizens."
37
"Man is born free yet we see him everywhere in chains"
--Jean Jacques Rousseau

"...the man who creates personal interest, is the man who gets ahead. Be liked and you will never want'
---Willy Loman in Death of a Salesman

law and government are illusions. Supposedly, a man is innocent until proven guilty. And yet here we see punitive measures taken against three who are not even charged with a crime, much less convicted. What is the response to this abrogation of our laws? They range from ho-hum to #12's belief that they deserved it anyway.

The rest of you are quite sane, but I'll note that there was no rioting in the streets demanding this trio's release. As well there should have been, if anyone cared at all about the laws of this country. But we don't, because the loss of our civil rights has become so commonplace that we hardly even notice it anymore.

Now, if you run in the Right circles, you can get all the media coverage of your civil rights being endangered. You can shout at Congress for restricting your gun ownership. You can, as the state of Alaska did yesterday, pass a bill nullifying any attempt to enforce federal gun legislation within the state. They've even suggested arresting cops that do try to enforce federal law. Do you think anyone would arrest a cop in WA for attempting to enforce marijuana prohibition? I don't see our legislature even contemplating such a thing, and yet that is what the legislature in AK did just yesterday. In MS, they have decided to subvert federal laws protecting a woman's right to choose. You see, its okay to suppress the civil rights sponsored by the Left, but you'll catch hell if you try to enforce the laws that the Right objects to.

And as such, our laws are a farce. A law that is not equally applied universally and blindly is meaningless. This trio's right to due process was violated for months and we did nothing at all. That should shame every one of us.

38
By the way dirac, how do you suppose the police could do 'real police work' if they can't ask people questions?
39
Thank you, Brendan Kiley. Why are there SOOOOOOO few news people like you? And thank you, Stranger, for giving him the job.
40
@34 - you nailed it!

It always amazes me how people (7, 12 & 17, in this case) make assertions about events of which they have no personal knowledge: that Duran and Olejnik knew the answers to the questions the Grand Jury Prosecutor was asking. Ironically, the only way 7/12/17 could have such information is if they were material witnesses themselves, which would make them subject to subpoena by this Grand Jury they seem intent on praising.

Even the fricken' Rockford Files offered up an incredibly informative episode on this topic of Grand Jury coercion and lack of any oversight for such abuses! In 1976!

http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi2820276…
41
@37 Might want to learn a bit about the laws of this country before you claim the rest of us don't care about them:

"The power of government to compel persons to testify in court or before grand juries and other governmental agencies is firmly established in Anglo-American jurisprudence. 2 The power with respect to courts was established by statute in England as early as 1562, 3 and Lord Bacon observed in 1612 that all subjects owed the King their "knowledge and discovery." 4 While it is not clear when grand juries first resorted to compulsory process to secure the attendance and testimony of witnesses, the general common-law principle that "the public has a right to every man's evidence" was considered an "indubitable certainty" that "cannot be denied" by 1742. 5 The power to compel testimony, and the corresponding duty to testify, are recognized in the Sixth Amendment [406 U.S. 441, 444] requirements that an accused be confronted with the witnesses against him, and have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. The first Congress recognized the testimonial duty in the Judiciary Act of 1789, which provided for compulsory attendance of witnesses in the federal courts. 6 MR. JUSTICE WHITE noted the importance of this essential power of government in his concurring opinion in Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52, 93 -94 (1964)

Among the necessary and most important of the powers of the States as well as the Federal Government to assure the effective functioning of government in an ordered society is the broad power to compel residents to testify in court or before grand juries or agencies. See Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273 . Such testimony constitutes one of the Government's primary sources of information."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/ge…
42
@giffy

We think there's evidence that you next door neighbor might be plotting to commit horrible crimes, as there have been lots of suspicious characters in the neighborhood recently, some of whom fit the descriptions of a couple of child molesters, terrorists, and homosexuals. What are the names and jobs of all the persons who have come into your home in the last three months, what did they talk to you about, where else did you meet them, and what were they doing and what did you talk about then? Did they meet any other people, such as your family members at any time?

There are other questions for you, but we will start with those. We will lock you up until you cooperate. That's fair, right?
43
@40 Then they should have said that instead of refusing to answer. They were granted immunity so nothing they said could be used against them.
44
@42 Not at all what happened here. If a group I was in committed violent acts and I was called to answer questions about them I would. Without question.
45
Most countries - civilized ones, anyway - don't, in fact, have a grand jury-like mechanism that allows the state to put people in long term imprisonment without:

- Conviction
- Trial
- Charge
- Accusation
- Probable cause
- Or even the most basic suspicion

The US is unique in the first world in having such a barbaric star chamber system.
46
giffy, you're missing the point. There is no "cause" that they are upholding, besides the cause of justice.

As you'll notice in the post, they had no direct involvement w/ any crime. Their only "crime" was they were friends/acquaintances w/ suspects, and the government's case against _those_ people were thin at best.

For intellectual honesty's sake, you should distance your feelings about 20something anarchists and the cause of justice. While you say you support the ruling, a lot of your arguments seem like they support the government's actions in this.
47
I'm not going to get too deep into the arguments here, since I've made all of mine several times over in print.

But it's worth noting that this peculiarity of our legal system (the grand jury's ability to hold people for long periods of time without charging them for a crime or recognizing their normal rights) has been abandoned in Australia, Canada, England, Scotland, Ireland, New Zealand, and other countries with similar legal systems.

Just because this legal apparatus exists doesn't make it inevitable, necessary, and good.
48
What violent act? There's no such thing as violence against property.
49

We will go to all lengths to insure that Seattle is safe for hipsters. Everyone else...eh.
52
@50 Thank you for sharing the powers of your imagination with all of us tonight. Well played, sir.
53
@44
The difference that you claim doesn't matter. The state says it needs to uphold its responsibility to protect the community. You have knowledge that may help, and they are the best ones to determine whether your information is useful or not, so you'd better sing if you don't support "those" dangerous people and want to stay free.
54
Nice of Giffy to point out that he'd like to return to European traditions from the time of the Inquisition. Shall we put them on the rack, burn them at the stake? What other medieval traditions that this country broke away from in the late 1700's would you like to return to?

This was straight out of the commie witch hunts. The court didn't want evidence about a window being broken, they wanted to punish people associated with a political view.
55
Good to hear that they're out, but no one is free until we're all free! Fuck the state and fuck you boot licking authority worshiping fascist!
56
More "martyrs" for the Stranger's faux holocausts. If it turns out they're gay, they'll be sainted.
57
Yay! These guys did nothing wrong. Not participating in an investigation should not be criminal. I can't believe there is anybody who actually believes that refusing to answer questions about other people is criminal.

If that's the case, we should not be conducting investigations with the CEO's, but with the Vice Presidents. We should be having grand juries asking the CEOs about their partners' participating in criminal activities and locking them up until they give us any answers.

Seriously, I didn't realize we were doing this thing wrong in investigating corporate crime. Lets do it right! Lets jail those motherfuckers for nothing!
58
@46 Thanks for making my case for me. They knew people involved in criminal actions and refused to give information on them. That is wrong. And fuck the people who don't think breaking other peoples things and scaring the shit out of them is not violent and wrong.

@57 We do. But they lie and a lie is an answer. Or we don't want to give them immunity so they can claim fifth amendment protection.

@47'You really should not be writing on the law as your application of it is biased and circumstantial. Not to mention pretty uninformed. Which I guess is why you don't actually get too deep in the arguments.
59
Giffy, no one gives a fuck. We don't want to cooperate with the state which why these folks are keeping quiet. You can go on and on about your logic and how well your logic makes sense, but, it doesn't fucking matter. Your opinion doesn't matter. Last I checked, you're not feeding the trio, you're not having sex with the trio, nor are you financing the trio which means you just need to shut up already and quit trying to make yourself sound smart and logical when you're not even putting one ounce effort into understanding why most of us are against the judicial system and how it works and how these folks rights are being impeded on. Sure, we aren't rioting in the streets... Nowadays, lots of us have work, pay bills, have hobbies, and life to deal with.. Because you believe in a certain way, Giffy, doesn't mean it's the right way. What you would do in their situation doesn't mean it's the right way. You should really take your head out of your asshole and see that folks are individuals and can do whatever they want and accept whatever consequences or repercussions that come with it. Again, your opinion won't change that and it would belittle it, either.
60
@59 I'd say my opinion matters about as much as yours. And given that this is just some bullshit comment thread, that is not a lot. Do you really think any of us here actually thinks this matters? We're just having fun.

Of course they can do what they want and take the well deserved consequences. Just like I can do what I want too and not take them seriously.

By all means live like you want, but maybe stop breaking the stuff of people who live differently?
61
The document you linked says "The government does NOT dispute the witnesses' assertions that confinement in the special housing until entails 23 hours of solitary confinement in their cells..."
62
Well, I agree with not breaking people's stuff who live differently.... However, wells fargo, Niketown, the federal courthouse, most definitely are "people's stuff" seeing as most of these banks replaces their "thousands of dollars" windows within hours.... Now, mayday folk didn't go an trash people's homes... If you think that banks and corporate owned stores are bad to break windows and is detrimental to people, than, good on you... Only, I'm just gonna stand firm in my point that you're an idiot. Otherwise, if you consider these facts and where the violence went to, maybe you wouldn't be so downright unsupportive and not as understanding.
63
most definitely *aren't
64
Either way, you're right... Both of our opinions don't matter. But, can I ask you one thing? Can you find fun in some other shit other than trolling on this comment with biased republican like views... Seriously, there are better things to joke with... Unless you absolutely enjoy antagonizing people.
65
@62 Ah so its OK to break peoples things if they have a lot of them?

@64 You first.
66
And I happen to like downtown and get a bit annoyed when self important jackasses throw a fit and make a mess of it.

That and it happens to hurt the cause of those working for social justice through better means.
67
@38 They can do that without a grand jury and lack of due process and you know it.

@66 Ok. So their friends get to go to jail? Look I don't like black bloc dummies any more than you, but I'll protect the right of their *acquaintances* to not be locked up indefinitely by a Star Chamber convened to run around wasting the tax payers' dime** trying to intimidate those with a particular political mindset, which, incidentally you don't like thus strangely seem more inclined to want incarceration of folks without charges, without proof of having committed any crime.

**I'd really like the Stranger to quantify the monetary amount of damage caused verses the whole kittenkaboodle of this circus you're calling justice.
68
@58 Here again, you've got shit coming out of your mouth.
69
HAHAHA!!! Suck it, giffy and all you fucking khaki wearing liberals! We win this round, you fucking lose. IN SILENCE WE ROAR
70
Ahhh! Giffy, he just called you a "khaki wearing" (?) liberal. Responde, si vous plait!

"IN SILENCE WE ROAR" (sorry, that just made me giggle).
71
That's great news. Thanks for keeping us up to date.
72
Let smash some windows in celebration!
73
Once the feds are finished investigating broken windows and mapping the social graphs of political dissidents, we can expect to soon see the first significant prosecution of one of the people who committed massive fraud and sank our economy, right?
74
@ 69, it's weird to see an anarchist (as your handle indicates you are) celebrating a LEGAL victory.
75
It is false to say they were held without charges. They were charged and found guilty of civil contempt of court. Civil contempt of court doesn't result in a criminal record, but criminal contempt of court will. Their release may or may not be prelude to criminal contempt charges being filed.
76
@67 There is no, "but I like these people", exception to the requirement to give testimony. Do you really not get that as associates they may have info on where these assholes were, what they had talked about doing, etc.?

I find it fascinating how you all seem to hate Grand Juries, which accord the accused a hell of a lot more protection (the people have to agree to bring charges, not just a prosecutor and judge), than the alternatives. But they only work if you can make people who don't want to give testimony, give testimony. The system we have in Washington and those more 'civilized' countries is certainly more efficient, but without a doubt s reduction in rights for those accused of crimes.

@70 I giggled too. After I recovered from the unconscionable attack on my pants of course.
77
The actual ruling is brief and quite readable. Has anyone read it?

It's interesting that the feds had apparently given up making a case for keeping them detained. The ruling states that they don't challenge any of the witnesses' assertions about their confinement or that the longer they stay, the firmer their resolve not to testify. Nor do they challenge the witnesses' statement that what they know is tangential to the investigation. That certainly makes it look like this was more of a federal power play than true law enforcement.

It's also interesting to know that someone can be detained for up to 18 months in order to coerce testimony. Good to know that the courts have the leeway to say "enough is enough." I can imagine some cases where that would be desirable (breaking a major drug cartel, for example). But even though I have nothing but contempt for the morons who think breaking a window is a political act, I'd rather they not waste millions on an insignificant group who will never do anything more serious, or make a greater impact, then that. Maybe these agents and attorneys will feel the effect of the sequester. (Extremely wishful thinking, of course.)
78
Oh, it's also important to note that both are still under contempt of court. They're free to leave detainment, but they are not cleared of contempt of court. They'll probably still have to appear to testify if called, and I believe that means they could end up back in the clink if they refuse. If there's a lawyer reading this, I'd appreciate clarification.

@ 75, they were found to be in contempt of court. They were not charged with criminal contempt. It says that right in the ruling. My guess is that there's a possibility that the feds could press that charge if they choose, but it's false to state that they were "charged and found guilty" of that already.
79
Contempt of Court

Contempt of court is behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. Contempt charges may be brought against parties to proceedings; lawyers or other court officers or personnel; jurors; witnesses;

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar…
80
They were charged with civil contempt. There was a contempt hearing in which they were found to be in contempt. (Found to be guilty of contempt) Their lawyers appealed the contempt verdict, but lost.
81
Rob, you haven't read the ruling. Read the ruling.
82
I read the ruling, and stand by my posts.
83
no they were not charged with anything rob, you are confused. they were never charged, they never plead, and they were never convicted. Its funny that you you out CHARGES in all caps but forgot the word right after it, which is "may"
"Contempt charges MAY be"
84
you put*
85
@ 82, then you're just plain wrong. I quote:

When a witness unlawfully refuses to answer questions from a grand jury, a court has authority to declare her in civil contempt. [My emphasis.] In those cases, the purpose of confinement following a finding of civil contempt is to coerce the witness's testimony. The confinement must end, for example, when the term of the grand jury expires (because the witness cannot testify before a grand jury that does not exist), or when the witness chooses to testify.

Dure porcess also demands, however, that the court end confinement where it is substantially likely that the witness's confinement is no longer coercive. Confinement withouth the possibility of coercing testimony is purely punitive, and falls within the realm of criminal law. So far as the court is aware, the Government has not charged either Ms. Olejnik or Mr. Duran with criminal contempt. [my emphasis.]


This demonstrates the difference between the finding of contempt as part of a grand jury investigation, and a charge of criminal contempt in which a witness is charged with such and put on trial for it. It's why the court can free them, as opposed to a parole board.
86
Spellcheck @ 85: "DUE process", not "Dure." I had to transcribe, since I don't know how to copy and paste from a PDF. (I imagine there's a way...)
87
Contempt charges were made in this case, and there was a contempt hearing in which they were found guilty.
88
@ 87, findings of the court are not convictions. Stop digging, please.
89
Matt, they were charged found guilty of CIVIL contempt, which legally can result in jail time. I specifically wrote civil contempt in my first post.
90
@80

"found to be in contempt" and "found to be guilty of contempt" are not the same, of course. The first is analogous to filing charges in a criminal case, the latter would be analogous to a conviction.

With that said, if the government decides to take them to court on the contempt charge, they'll have a pretty strong case. This, incidentally, is how courts compel testimony in those wonderful enlightened countries without Grand Juries*-- if you don't testify, you're charged with a crime, and treated like a suspect**.

 

* and also without spousal privilege or even 5th-amendment style protections against self-incrimination, for the most part.

** often in streamlined procedures without recourse to the years-long due process system found in the US.
91
@44: What happened that was so violent? Surely you aren't calling a couple of broken windows "violence," because that would just be silly.
92
9O, after the contempt charges were made, there were contempt court hearings held, and they were found guilty.
93
@60: Banks are not "people who live differently."
94
@91

Threats are a form of violence. Breaking the windows of a specific class of person* is a threat.

* or organization, if you refuse to regard the human members of some organizations as people.
95
@ 89, you also said they were "charged." They were not. You called the finding a "verdict." It was not. You say they are "guilty." You won't find that word anywhere in the ruling. These are important legal distinctions. Unless the government brings charges and they go on trial and are convicted, they will have no criminal record as a result of their confinement.

Now, unless you care to either walk back your use of the words "charged" and "verdict" and "guilty," or demonstrate that the court DID charge them and found a verdict guilty and issued a sentence (as opposed to the hearings and findings and orders to be held, which aren't the same even though they resulted in jail time), then I'm taking my leave because if you don't do either, then there's nothing you'll say substantial enough to warrant further response.
96
95, they were charged with civil contempt. The court then held a hearing to determine if they were guilty of civil contempt, which they were, and their lawyer tried and failed to appeal the verdict.
97
@92

The hearing in which the judge's contempt ruling was upheld would be analogous to a bail hearing, not a trial. The refusers have not been tried for contempt, and they have not been "found guilty of contempt", civil or criminal. They have been jailed pending testimony after a ruling of contempt without any conviction and at a judge's discretion, just a a criminal suspect might be jailed pending trial after a bail hearing without any conviction and at a judge's discretion.
98
97, they were charged with civil contempt. The court then held a hearing to determine if they were guilty of civil contempt, which they were, and their lawyer tried and failed to appeal the verdict. So the contempt guilty verdicts stood, and they were sent to jail. Sending people to jail for civil contempt wasn't created for these folks. It's a centuries old standard legal action.
99
@98

They were not "charged with civil contempt." They were held to compel compliance with the judge's order, after refusing to comply with that order and being ruled in contempt by the judge.

There was no finding of guilt, because there was no due process, and there was no due process because due process is not deemed necessary when the prisoner can secure his or her own release at any time by complying with the judge's order.

There was no "verdict." There was not even a "charge" leveled against the refusers. There was a hearing, but it was not a hearing to determine "guilt," it was a hearing to uphold or strike down the judge's ruling of contempt.

Sending people to jail for civil contempt was created exactly for "these folks," and it does not entail any "verdict" or "guilt."
100
@ 61. You are correct! I (hastily) transcribed from the pdf and made a few typos. Thanks for catching that. It's fixed now.
101
99, Jailing people for contempt of court has been around longer than these folks have been alive. There was a charge of contempt for which they were found guilty.
102
@101

By "these folks," we of course mean "people who refuse to testify when summoned or subpoenaed." And they are exactly why this system exists.

And no, there was no "charge of contempt," and they were not "found guilty," and you don't appear to have anything beyond mulish reiteration to back up your assertions, at this point.
103
@ 102, exactly why I dropped out. Even his own link @ 79 disagrees with him.
104


Contempt of Court

Contempt of court is behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. Contempt charges may be brought against parties to proceedings; lawyers or other court officers or personnel; jurors; witnesses; or people who insert themselves in a case, such as protesters outside a courtroom.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar…