Features Apr 3, 2013 at 4:00 am

What Life Is Like After Prison and Solitary Confinement for Local Activists Katherine Olejnik and Matthew Duran

Comments

1
Thank You, Very insightful and informative story.
2
They took her baby away? Fucking inhuman. Psychopathic and wrong on every level. The FDC essentially killed a child.
3
This country has no business criticizing anyone over political prisoners after this. Uncivilized.
4
see, now look here you two: you tell these fed cowards your role is vital and you will see some shit get done real fast. a bunch of pathetic cowards the lot of them. and those guards, holy crap, Prez, the prison guards here in this case were hitting on your female political prisoners. what the fuck is that dude?
5
This story makes me tear up. We have become what we hate the most. He can't even get his old fucking job back? This is the worst government ever, I don't think we should let them finish.
6
Great article. Thanks again Mr. Kiley.
7
this is what prison is. in humane and punitive. in most places on earth it is far worse.

@5: which government? The American Government? The Obama admin.?
8
Completely disgusting. The US Attorney's Office should be ashamed of themselves for asking political natured questions, they are irrelevant, at the very least, and at the worst, clearly criminal.
9
@7 - In which countries *where you would choose to live* is prison worse than here?
10
#7: Really? The US has over 80,000 people in solitary confinement right now. The UK, which has the highest prison population in Europe, has 40 people in solitary. Not 40,000, just 40, and there's controversy there about torturing those 40 people.

The US also has the most prisoners in the world - over 2 million - more than the human rights abuser China, which has over 4x the general population of the US.
11
Unlawful detention, coercion and cruel and unusual punishment.

Just another day in Obama's America.
12
Unlawful detention, coercion, cruel and unusual punishment.

Just another day in Obama's America.
13
This is disgusting.
14
Can anyone explain how a country with so many constitutional protections can allow people to be locked up without being charged with a crime? Genuinely asking from an appalled European perspective.
15
Wow, I never would have imagined that a camera angle could make the Reef look both clean and friendly. I've never personally witnessed it in either condition.
16
@14

Because the last few administrations have effectively gutted the bill of rights.

The Patriot Act and the NDAA signed by both Bush and Obama have destroyed the Fourth, Fifth, sixth and Eighth amendments. Currently Obama is working on gutting the remaining portions of the first and that pesky second amendment.
17
@ 16

First, let me say that the treatment of these two individuals has been disgusting and unconscionable, and that in general our prison system is brutal and dysfunctional.

Now that that is out of the way, this has nothing to do with the Patriot Act or the executive branch destroying the Bill of Rights. Judges have the power to imprison people in order to compel them to abide by orders of the court, including an order to answer a question. This has always been the case and it allows courts to function.

The judge in this case chose to exercise that power unwisely and inhumanely. And again, our prisons are brutal. They have been for ages. As far as what does and does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, take that up with the Supreme Court.

I'm not saying that there is nothing to be angry about here or with the president, but let's not confuse the two.
19
And how does freedom feel? "Frustrating," Duran answered. Because he and Olejnik are out, he said, "people think this is over." He's frustrated that the grand jury is still sitting and could put more people in prison. He's frustrated that another grand-jury refuser, Maddie Pfeiffer, is still locked up at the FDC, and yet another has to live on the lam. He's frustrated that he and Olejnik are still living under the threat of being charged with criminal contempt. (Civil contempt, which they were doing time for, is intended to coerce testimony. Criminal contempt is punishment for not having testified.) Duran's former employer, a small IT company, said it wouldn't hire him back until the statute of limitations had run out. How long would that be? "Four years, 11 months, and one day," he answered quickly.

Excellent! No job for the next 59 months, and a criminal contempt charge still possible. I hope they keep that worm twisting on the hook for as long as they can.
20
OMG---this story sounds so much like something out of Ken Kesey's "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"!
Truly and heartbreakingly insane.
21
#20, yep, the inmates in Kesey's book were volunteers just like these pathetic jokers were
22
@21, 19, and several other comments of yours I have read: In contrast to your handle, you do seem to be pretty brainwashed. Keeping these two in jail--let alone solitary confinement--is a violation of freedom at the highest level. I don't see how you can argue that.
23
The fact that right now you are likely coloring me a liberal who has certain beliefs that you disagree with is also evidence that you should rethink your positions.
24
Maddy Pfeiffer is still in solitary confinement. You might want to mention that.
25
No one cares about Maddy Pfeiffer.
26
Wow...Thank you again, Mr. Kiley. You've picked up some trolls again. WOW...Ha ha ha...Congratulations! Thank you again to the stranger for following this story.
27
I'm just going to repeat what I said in earlier threads to head off those "the law is the law" trolls who mistake intellectual laziness for objectivity:

If their refusal to give testimony was a crime, the state should have charged them with it, sentenced them, and moved on. This should be incentive enough to compel testimony out of most people. Sure, this punishment might not be enough of an incentive to compel compliance 100% of the time, but that's something it has in common with literally every other type of crime we have a law for.

What the state has no business doing is holding people indefinitely without charge, trial, or sentence. That's unacceptable for any crime, be it murder, drug trafficking, and, yes, even crimes so grotesque and unspeakable as ...refusing to say whether or not you know a guy who knows a guy who reads the same books as a guy who threw a brick at a window once.

Any laws allowing the state to legitimately do this are nothing more than unfortunate kinks in our legal system that needs to be fixed. In any case, their incarceration was a waste of resources AT BEST.

"The law is the law" is a non-argument. It's a meaningless tautology that isn't worth the breath it takes to say it. Every shitty law in history has been "the law" at one point. For those of us who aren't intellectually lazy chickenshits, there's a value in assessing the validity of certain laws and doing away with the ones that result in injustice, waste, or corruption.

For the rest of you, I hope someday you'll pull your heads out of your asses and start requiring some actual standards from a system that's supposed to be tasked with prioritizing the prosecution of criminal activity.
28
Unbrainwashed, I am actually legitimately curious: how do you find this tremendous injustice to be so absurd to write about? Why do you harbor such contempt for two people who are doing what they believe in?
29
That should read "need" to be fixed. Not "needs."

Not that I should worry about minor grammatical errors when arguing against the likes of "Unbrainwashed." I'm sure his stupidity will vastly overshadow any mistake I could make next time he posts.
30
#28, Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy did what they believed in.
31
From a UK citizen's perspective, I am curious why the 2 individuals did not simply refuse to answer the questions based on the 5th Amendment in the U.S. legal system. Such a right is there, or is it exempt in Grand Jury cases?

Surely they can safely not answer questions that are not relevant in the first place. Placing those questions to those individuals might have placed the 2 in some kind of danger, though the danger would have to be proved, of course.

They could have also gone ahead and answered and simply did the "I don't know" or "I cannot say for certain..." routine. But this is a sad event to read in a great website article. Going to tweet this...

Cassy
32
#31, they were given immunity from prosecution for self-incriminating statements. It removed any fifth amendment protection. There is no prohibition on asking "irrelevant" questions. Grand jury testimony is secret, so unless they revealed their answers they couldn't have faced "some kind of danger."

If they'd answered "I don't know," and it could be shown from the testimony of others that they did know, they could be prosecuted for perjury.
34
@28, 29: "Unbrainwashed" is just the troll Mister G who got banned a while ago for mocking victims of a deadly shooting.

Like all trolls, he is just a moron not worth listening or talking to. This has nothing to do with the post, and everything to do with just pissing people off like a bored 13 year old.
35
#34, I have never mocked any victims of a tragic shooting. What are you talking about, fuckwit?
36
34: I'm not so sure. If he were MisterG, he'd be putting the word "progressive" in scare quotes every other word, and finding ways to turn literally any topic into a declaration that REAL progressives actually hate gays, blacks, taxes, regulations, and lattes.

Unbrainwashed, on the other hand, is content to merely compare mild civil contempt to serial murder without realizing how stupid that makes him look.
37
#36, but weren't Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy "doing what they believed in?" That's the only standard #28 held out there.
38
@Unbrainwashed, that was a very un-thorough answer to my question.

You know very well that it's stupid to compare two people who refuse to share the political opinions of others with law enforcement to psychopathic, necrophiliac, serial killers.

Please, try a little. What is so wrong with refusing to cooperate with law enforcement, who are asking you irrelevant questions and who are clearly just fishing for some info on anarchists who may or may not have broken some windows? They are looking to stop independent thought, Unbrainwashed. There are a thousand crimes a day more severe than what Olejnik and Duran committed, and cops happily let people off the hook. They are trying to intimidate people who question the system, and they do so by taking their freedom. That's some totalitarian bullshit.
39
I welcome any rebuttal that contains critical thought.
40
#38, there's nothing "totalitarian" about the grand jury investigation. They're a bunch of vandals and their friends, and they got what they deserved. Actually, less than what they deserved. They should still be in jail. The judge never should've let 'em out.

And yes, I can "think critically," you condescending, self-righteous Seattle fuckwit. Just because someone doesn't agree with you and your punk friends doesn't make them "not a critical thinker," regardless of what you want to say about it.
41
Unbrainwashed, you certainly sound angry. Thankfully we have anonymous internet comment threads I guess? Cheaper than a therapist?

The thing about the criminal justice system is, supposedly A) There's a presumption of innocence. To overcome the presumption, proof is required, and not just any proof, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. B) You can't be held criminally accountable for actions you did not commit or participate in.

Even if, and it's a big IF, those kids knew who were involved, it's been conclusively proven that they weren't there and didn't participate. They don't fit either category. And where does it stop? If there's no legal oversight what's to stop the courts from imprisoning their family to help "coerce their testimony"? The fact is, they didn't do anything, they got let out because it was the right thing to do and they never should have been locked up in the first place.

You don't like it, I hear North Korea's a real exciting place to be. It's all the rage in the news and it sounds like your kind of place.
42
#41, take a lesson: Hang out with the anarchist punks, and it'll happen to you too. Sure, you'll get your close-up in the Stranger, but your life will be fucked up forever. Your choice.
43
@42: Is it just me? For someone who goes so far out of his way to advertise that you're "Unbrainwashed", you really do wound heavily brainwashed.
If you don't want your life "fucked up forever", maybe you should stay off the malt liquor, cocaine, and far away from the anarchist punks?
Just a thought.
44
@43: DANG it!! That's sound, not "wound", although Unbrainwashed seems a little wound up, too.

Okay. Back to the thread.
45
Unbrainwashed, I think it's interesting how you assume I hang out with punks and draw all these other conclusions about me based on the fact that I questioned your strong hatred of these two people. It shows how black and white your thinking is. Someone doesn't approve of the way things function in the legal system? "Fucking idiotic traitor anarchist punk! Go iron your mohawk!" Right?

I'm a pretty conventional member of society except for a few things: I don't really like when my government abuses its powers and ignores real problems. I also don't really like when other citizens respond by excusing the government for this obviously ridiculous behavior, refusing to question the status quo whatsoever. So readily accepting of injustice and disparaging people who aren't.

Anyway, I was actually hoping for some kind of dialogue but you pull out the "fuckwit" stuff so soon it shows me you're incapable of that. And yeah, sure I was condescending. That is because I genuinely believe you're a pretty narrow person. Critical thought doesn't necessarily mean you agree with me, it just means you can really defend your positions with something other than "that's the way it is, so fuck you," which is basically all I've heard from you so far.
46
I should also probably say that I don't condone the destruction of property, since you've also assumed I'm cool with that. I don't think that's what will help anything. But Olejnik and Duran really had nothing to do with that at all, and were jailed--in solitary confinement no less--for months.

And you persist in your belief that they deserved it. Maybe you'll bend over and take it if a uniformed officer asks you about your friends' names and their political affiliations and an incident you had nothing to do with, but you don't need to act like such a jerk to those who don't.
47
@46: I admire your desire to engage "unbrainwashed" in a civil conversation, but I feel you may be wasting your time. Judging from this, and other threads, MrBrainwashed just seems to want to spend his time jumping into threads and letting us know we are all librul dupes and phonies and whores for Teh Stranger. He comes across as vituperative, bitter, somewhat coherent (but mostly not) and awfully angry about something. He's just another in a long line of trolls who get their tiny wee wees all stiffy stiffy by yelling at Slog readers and posters. He's useful for comedy, not much else.
48
@Claypatch, I'm seeing that. It's a shame.
49
Accountability of authorities is absent.
Well informed Grand Juries can impeach
political prosecutors in a Republic.
50
And yeah, sure I was condescending. That is because I genuinely believe you're a pretty narrow person. Critical thought doesn't necessarily mean you agree with me, it just means you can really defend your positions with something other than "that's the way it is, so fuck you," which is basically all I've heard from you so far.

I'm not buying your bullshit, and you're all butthurt about it. Oh yeah, and keep telling yourselves that anyone who calls you out is bitter, vituperative, angry, etc. I love the call to "civility" on a website that routinely features slashing, profane insults against anyone who doesn't toe the line.

Look, your anarchist punk friends are out of jail. You should feel happy. I feel good that one of them, anyway, ain't gonna get his job back for almost five years. I hope anyone who's thinking of hanging out with your crowd notices what happens when you mix in with the anarchists.
51
Yes, you win, you feel all better now?

Nobody's making you read the Stranger, you know.
52
#51, wow, so now you don't want anyone who thinks you're a typical Seattle fuckwit to read the Stranger and tell you what a typical Seattle fuckwit you are? O, the fragility!
53
Nothing is more American than the right to not testify. What are we to take people and hold them in solitary simply for the crime of saying nothing? Is this fucking North Korea all of a sudden?

That said, what's to stop these people from testifying--so as not to be held in contempt---then just saying "I don't recall" whenever they're asked a question? It's not a lie---no one but you can know what you do or don't recall.
54
First off, thank you Brendan Kiley for the superb coverage. I am thankful to know this story.

I don't condone violence and destruction of property. However, I also don't condone the fraud and the greed of the big banks. And I keep thinking to myself, what is the greater crime? Was the great crime the breaking of the Wells Fargo Bank's picture windows? Or was the greater crime the fraud, corruption and greed that nearly brought down the entire world economy? The fraud, corruption and greed that took away middle-class jobs, that gutted workers' retirement accounts, that displaced workers from their homes, that ruined careers, that trashed the hopeful futures of our young people?

In this case, we have broken windows--a lot of broken windows. And the punishment? The punishment was solitary confinement for two people who were never convicted of that crime, and two people who we know did not perpetrate that crime. They're simply two people who might know who did it. Wow! That's quite a punishment! And had Brendan Kiley not pursued this story, we can assume these two would still be in the dungeon.

We know that Wells Fargo committed crimes. They sold mortgages fraudulently, and then they took those mortgages and repackaged them to look like "legitimate instruments" or whatever misleading language you want to use to describe it, and then they made money off of it. Literally, they took the money from the workers' pockets and put it into their own pockets. And their reward? They got bailed out by the workers.

Here's the problem with our Department of Justice. They go for the low-hanging fruit. For them it's like shooting pigeons on a limb. It probably wasn't hard for them to find two people associated with the Anarchist movement and arrest them. But going after the big bankers? That is obviously too hard for them, so they don't bother to protect all of us hard workers from the big bankers and from big money and from the desecrating practices of large corporations.

Decades ago, Dylan got it right when he wrote: "All the criminals in their coats and their ties / are free to drink martinis and watch the sun rise / while Reuben sits like Buddha in a ten-foot cell / an innocent man in a living hell."

I have actually admired Jenny Durkan for much of her work as our US Prosecutor, but these actions that she took are not in keeping with what our forefathers wanted for our country and for our people. Jenny! I understand that we don't want scary people dressed in black running through our streets smashing windows and damaging property. But if you want to protect the country, for God's sake go after the real criminals--go after those big banks. Dismantle them and throw the real criminals in jail. Where is the justice?
55
If you are someone who "might have known who did it," and you get a subpoena to testify to a grand jury, then you testify. If you refuse to testify, then you can park your anarchist fuckwit ass in jail.
56
You gave me no good arguments and then chastised me when I asked you, saying "you weren't falling for my bullshit," whatever that means.

I'm still open to hear why you think it's okay for this to happen, other than "that's the way it is, fuck you anarchists."
57
Im no lawyer but it seems #55 hit the nail on the head. These two decided they didn't wanna rat on there friends and served jail time for it. I admire them for not being snitches. Now, what if these two were wittness to a rape and refused to tell the grand jury, would everyone here on SLOG be in a huff about the Injustices that they faced?
58
#56, see my post #55. It's a simple enough answer that even you should be able to comprehend it. You might not like the answer, but it's why I "think it's okay for this to happen."
59
Maybe the targets of this grand jury should defy their subpoenas, too. By what authority does that federal grand jury dare to ask questions?

http://tinyurl.com/cnqn4kb
60
katy and matt went to jail.
61
Yep, and the punks should've stayed there.
62
@57, but that's just the point. It is quite different.

They weren't asking about a rape and murder. They were asking convoluted questions regarding their friends and their political affiliations, and an event they were not even witness to.

I understand the legal principle, but that is what is infuriating: This rule--that both refusing to speak about a rape/murder and refusing to speak about people who may have been involved in breaking a few windows--is problematic. No matter the technicalities people use to explain *why* it happens, it is still wrong. If citizens think this is just, and are quick to explain away this obvious abuse of power, then we are failing.

It is very clear that they were pursuing a further agenda: squash the people who have different ideas about the way a society should work, make them fearful, and wrestle them into submission. Unbrainwashed is already fully indoctrinated, so much so that he hates the very thought that someone dare not speak to the police when questioned, even when it doesn't affect him at all.
63
@Unbrainwashed, I know, I am probably just so fuckwitted to you.

It's funny that you hate anarchists so deeply. I bet if this article was about two people who had witnessed a rape and murder and were jailed for refusing to talk, and we were all saying they deserved it, you'd be absent from the discussion.
64
Mr. Duran and Ms. Olejnik: Let us suppose, for the moment, that a bunch of business owners--let us call them "rich" to really get your dander up--became tired of your politics. Let us further suppose they formed their own affinity group "White Bloc". Let us suppose White Bloc decided that intimidation and threats were the perfect way to make their own political point. Let us suppose they met and formed a plan whereby they would meet at the resaurant where you celebrated your release from jail while you were there. While there, they would form a crowd and from the safety of the crowd don masks, robes and hoods; they would smash all the windows of the restaurant and then melt back into the crowd high-fiving and congratulating themselves on a successful operation. Finally, supppose that on the way down to your town they had stopped at my house, that I knew of their plans and did nothing but offer my implicit support. The point is, your experience had nothing to do with your politics. It had to do with folks who are no different in their tactics from the KKK. I am sorry for your recent experience, but in a free society we cannot allow thugs to take over political discourse. I truly wish you better days ahead.
65
c'mon now, admit it.. you relish being victims of what you despise. the reason for solitary was for your own protection. the gp would probably liked to have shanked you, for being there on principle rather than desperation.
66
Hmm; maybe Mr. Brainwashed is "MisterG's" new account. Now that I think about it, his idiotic angry rhetoric is pretty similar (for instance, "THEY BELONG IN JAIL BECAUSE THEY'RE YOUNG PUNKS AND THEY PROBABLY HAVE TATTOOS AND STUPID HAIR AND SMELL BAD! ANYONE WHO DISAGREES IS JUST ANGRY THAT MY HIGH-LEVEL CRITICAL THINKING DOESN'T ALLOW ME TO SWALLOW THEIR PRO-STUPID-HAIR BULLSHIT!") Also, it seems like he merely replaced his "Seattle 'progressives'" obsession with "Seattle fuckwits."

Were you bullied by vegetarian hipsters from Seattle as a kid, Brainwashed?

57: See my comment about what should, at most, have been done to these kids even if you agree that there should be jail time for refusing to testify about extremely minor crimes. Hint: it doesn't include indefinite imprisonment without charge, trial, or sentence.
67
64: Two things

1) The part of your analogy where they stop by your house and tell them your plans beforehand is your first mistake. In the real story, these two weren't even privy to the crime itself; nor did anybody even suspect that they were. These two were suspected of nothing more than (possibly) personally knowing some people who may have been privy to it, as well as (possibly) sharing similar tastes in political literature. This isn't the same as knowing about the actual commission of an actual crime.

2) Alright, let's suppose that the government arrested some friends-of-friends of those "White-bloc" people and asked them whether they'd ever played golf in a country club near Seattle, or whether they owned copies of "Atlas Shrugged," then jailed them indefinitely without trial or charge when they refused to answer. You'll just have to trust me when I say that I'd find that equally ridiculous, for the exact same reasons.

This thread isn't just a bunch of anarchist punks sticking up for their tribe, despite what "Brainwashed" would have you believe. It's a matter of what we believe the government should and shouldn't be able to do. Personally, I think it's a bad idea to allow any government to jail people indefinitely without charge, trial, or sentence. I don't care which "type" of person happens to be on the receiving end of such shoddy practices in any particular instance.
68
ANARCHY PUNKS!!! GET OFF MAH LAWN!!!!
69
#63, I don't "hate" anyone. But I'm not at all impressed with the anarchists. Who, by the way, didn't just destroy bank windows but the car of one of my friends, the effect of which was quite far reaching, to put it mildly.

The anarchists don't care about anyone but themselves. They think it's an adventure, and it doesn't matter who they hurt. So they trash someone's car, and he can't make his rent, and his mother with cancer has no way to get to UW Medical Center for her radiation, and no one can deliver her morphine so she writhes in pain.

Does any of that matter to them, or to you? Nope. You don't give a flying fuck about any of the consequences of what your buddies do. No, I don't "hate" them, but don't ask me to respect them, or to respect your or your trendy yuppie bullshit either.

You and your friends are typical Seattle fuckwits. Usually I laugh, but not this time.
70
p.s.: Nope, I don't "hate" Katherine Olejnik, but when she gets breast cancer I sure as hope she doesn't expect any more consideration than her friends wound up showing for my friend's mother. Katie, enjoy the pain, and know that karma's got a way of comin' right back at ya.
71
69,70: You're having a really hard time grasping this whole "they weren't actually among the window-smashers" concept, aren't you? You're also having trouble grasping the whole "you can still punish guilty people if you give them a charge, a trial, and a sentence" concept.

Neither of those concepts is very complicated.

Now you can go on about how my ability to grasp such complicated concepts makes me a fuckwit.

Or maybe you can just write another scholarly paragraph about how I probably drink white wine and eat arugula and listen to Mozart and drink lattes while I sympathize with anarchists with dumb piercings and messy apartments.
72
#71, see my posts 55 and 59. Maybe you need some arugula, lattes, wine, and Mozart. I'm told they improve reading comprehension.
73
72: I saw them, and at best, all they do is explain why you think they should be punished. In my very first post in this thread, I explained how the state should go about punishing those who commit civil contempt. I never made any assertion that there should be no laws or punishments against it.

Reading comprehension, indeed.

What I'm still waiting for is your explanation for how punishing them for their refusal to testify requires the government to avoid charging them with this crime, trying them, and sentencing them. That's what so many people find so outrageous about this case.

Try and keep up.

But honestly, I don't think you have such an explanation, because I think you're honestly too stupid to recognize the difference between punishment-without-trial and punishment-with-trial.

Given this, you should be glad that there are smarter people than you out there, protecting you from potential abuses that you're incapable of recognizing as abuses.

So you go right ahead and keep bitching about "typical Seattle this-and-that," thinking that being a moron is the same as being no-nonsense. Poor little lamb.
74
I can't wait until George Bush is kicked out of office and replaced by a Progressive administration. Then this sort of thing won't happen any more.
75
What I'm still waiting for is your explanation for how punishing them for their refusal to testify requires the government to avoid charging them with this crime, trying them, and sentencing them.

I think the government should charge them with criminal contempt, but what I think plus a couple bucks will get me something at Starbucks. Looks like the feds have exercised "prosecutorial discretion" and will let 'em off with time served.

Everyone should be happy, including you, especially when it's obvious how little you care about the lives your Seattle fuckwit friends mess up.
76
75: Explain to me how wanting criminals to have trials means that I don't give a shit about their victims.

Oh wait, you can't, because you haven't thought your beliefs through even that far, because you're a dipshit.
77
#76, one way or the other, you want your Seattle fuckwit anarchist friends to trash whatever they want to trash. Fuck them and fuck you.
78
Right. Because being charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced is totally the same as being able to trash whatever you want.

Usually when I call someone dumber than a toddler, I'm exaggerating. But in your case, that's literally true. Wow.
79
STOP THE PRESSES!!! A guy is mad about something on the internet! He's getting emotional and personal! You guys! A guy is mad on the internet!
80
Unbrainwashed, I am sorry that happened to your friend, and I'm being serious. What happened to his car and the subsequent events is absolutely wrong and very sad. The people who busted up his car are assholes.

But it's important to know that not all anarchists are assholes. Often, they don't break windows or destroy property, but simply hold ideals that humans can do better on this Earth with less political hierarchy if they work together. They share ideas peaceably and use their words. They read and inform and don't believe in authority just for authority's sake.

Of course, some percentage of any group is going to be assholes. But your loathsome attitude towards Duran and Olejnik is totally misdirected. They are not responsible for what happened to your friend.

81
WHY DOES ANYONE GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THESE KIDS? They broke the law and were punished within it. It's not an "opt-in" system, as much as would-be anarchists like to thing of themselves as the Free Folk North of the Wall.

Where is the news here?
82
#80, if the feds just picked them at random and quizzed them on their friends' politics, I'd be on their side, punks though they are. But that's obviously not what happened.

The problem, of course, is that we don't know why they were picked. This is because the feds operate under rules that won't let them give their side. The Stranger sure as fuck isn't going to try to check it out, and neither are you.

So we're left with the usual fuckwits defending the usual punks. The anarchists fall into two broad groups. There's a hard core who want to cause all kinds of mayhem, some of which can be quite destructive and some of which is trivial, and some of which seems trivial until you find out through happenstance what effect it has on real lives in the real world.

Now, what I think or what you think about the anarchists is just so many farts in the wind or pixels on a screen, either or both. They were called in; the refused; they did their five months or however long it was, and the one guy is (if I believe what I've read) unemployable at his old job for what rounds up to five years.

It's over, so here we are farting in the wind. What happened to my friend isn't the only example. I'm one degree of separation from others who have been the targets of mayhem because they were worker bees for some company these pukes targeted.

I put them into two categories. One is, like I said, the hard core. My guess is that Olejnik is one of them, but that's just a guess. The other category is free-floating misfits of the type chronicled by Eric Hoffer in "The True Believer," which I consider a classic.

My guess is that Duran is in the second category, but that's also just a guess. Whoever is in what category is a trivial issue here; what counts is that you have a small hard core who manipulate a bunch of clueless free-floater misfits, some of whom wind up in serious trouble as a result.

If you want to think kind thoughts about them and imagine me as the Nazi overlord, go right the fuck ahead, because, after all, we are both just farting in the wind and you might as well make yours stink as much as you can. I think they're typical fuckwits, and if I ran the show they wouldn't have gotten off nearly as lightly as they did.
83
@ 81. They didn't break the law. They didn't commit a crime. They weren't witnesses to a crime. They weren't charged, nor tried, nor convicted of anything.

And yet they spent half a year in jail and a chunk of that time in solitary.

And why? Nobody on the government side (the US Attorney, the Bureau of Prisons) is willing or able to explain.

That's the news here.
84
They broke the law by refusing to testify. The feds can't explain. The rules won't let them talk. Wait, I already wrote that but you're too much of a fuckwit to read it the first time.
86
I just don't believe my government would do this.

Yeah, I used to feel that way ... until I decided to take on the banks. [October 2008]

It's escalated to me accusing our Police department (who I've previously accused of racial harassment) and the banks of conspiring to murder me and my family. Just last week US Bank's lawyers were able to get an injunction against us requiring us to turn in all handguns because (get this) I threatened to press criminal charges against their lawyer for perjury and did charge one of their lawyers with violating California Business and Professions Code. Yes, I most certainly did. I also got an Injunction against Bank of America and a Restraining Order against US Bank.

So, after three days of moot-court, the judge (who it turns out is under criminal investigation accused of trading sexual favors for jobs and of having sex in court -- Judge Scott A. Steiner) and even though the judge heard the tape where I repeatedly said "I will see you in court", the judge issued the injunction, which we intend to appeal.

I can go to their offices and stand right next to them. I can go to their homes and stay for dinner -- so long as I am nice. I can't follow them from home to work. I can't own a gun.

I used to be a missile engineer for the Navy. The Navy recently (2011) offered me the job as "Chief Engineer, Air-to-Ground Missiles, but I could not accept that offer due to my litigation against the banks. How does one go from "Head rocket scientist in charge of other rocket scientists" to "Threat"?

By asking a question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZbOnLHff…
87

I was willing to be sympathetic, until I read all their fervor for helping people in prison!

I guess since I live in a neighborhood besieged by crooks, gangs, drug addicts, I much prefer that more people were put into prison and punished rather than have this level of sympathy.
88
Jenny Durbin is a freakin idiot and her office is a farce.

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.