Skip to main content

View Diary: Despite Government Denials, Documents Show NSA Continues Harvesting Americans' Data (129 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The trial judge has barred (15+ / 0-)

    the defense from mentioning or using  the 1st Amendment or freedom of speech.


    "Information is power. But like all power there are those who want to keep it for themselves" Aaron Swartz, 1986 - 2013
    TheStarsHollowGazette.com

    by TheMomCat on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 10:50:34 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  That's San Diego. (5+ / 0-)

      City Government has complete and utter contempt for the concept of Constitutional rights at all levels.

      When the broadly written Loitering statute was struck down, they replaced it with a "Tarrying" statue with otherwise identical wording.

      In the lead-up to major conventions, the Cops always gun down a few homeless guys just to let them know the GTFO of Downtown.

      Mr. Universe is a known degenerate Robotophile, and his sources include former Browncoat Traitors. What is their agenda in leaking top secret information about the Reavers and endangering us all?

      by JesseCW on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 11:07:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  On what grounds? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Simplify, TheMomCat, dadoodaman, kyril

      Any idea?

      •  The judge (6+ / 0-)

        said it wasn't pertinent to the charge of vandalism. A bit convoluted in my view but remember the "victim" is  Bank Of America.

        From Jonathan Turley, the ruling came a the request of the prosecution:

        Judge Shore granted (Deputy City Attorney Paige) Hazard’s motion to prohibit Olson’s attorney Tom Tosdal from mentioning the First Amendment, free speech, free expression, public forum, expressive conduct, or political speech during the trial. Shore ruled that “The State’s Vandalism Statute does not mention First Amendment rights.” Of course, he could simply instructed the jury that it is not a defense but clearly worries about jury nullification. [..]

        There is also the question of the constitutionality of a statute that bars political statements on a sidewalk written in chalk. The greatest question for me however is the overcharging by the prosecutors. I am also surprised that Bank of America (which avoided charges of its own officials in financial scandals) did not reign in its security contractor and state that they do not ask for charges in the case.

        Olson will clearly not receive anything near 13 years and may not serve any time in jail. However, this seems like a case of overkill by the prosecution.


        "Information is power. But like all power there are those who want to keep it for themselves" Aaron Swartz, 1986 - 2013
        TheStarsHollowGazette.com

        by TheMomCat on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 03:07:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wow, I missed that! (5+ / 0-)

          Thanks for posting it....

          ...there is also the question of the constitutionality of a statute that bars political statements on a sidewalk written in chalk....
          Someone ought to challenge that vandalism statute some time, particularly if this guy sees even one damned day in jail.  

          Turley claims to not understand the "overcharging", but I'll bet he does. He just can't say so on the telly or in print--directly, anyway. At least he hints at it...
           

          Olson will clearly not receive anything near 13 years and may not serve any time in jail.  

          As you say so well initially:

          remember the "victim" is  Bank Of America.
          Gotta keep us peons scared, don'tcha know. They know that WE know wtf those thieves have been up to and that nothing remotely significant has been done by our government to stop them. They have every vested interest in pretending to make a federal case out of this, as a simple deterrent.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site