The Freedom Bulletin

This has been a busy week in various cases and trials that The Freedom Bulletin is following. I did not have time to post about all of them during the week, so here is a recap of some of the more newsworthy (in my opinion) goings-on that you may have missed:

The trial of confessed mass-killer Anders Behring Breivik continues in Norway. Last week, he described the massacre that he carried out in chilling detail, said that he would rather be executed than face the “pathetic” maximum sentence of 21 years in prison, and proclaimed that he has no regrets and “would do it again.” This week, testimony turned to a psychiatric report that called him legally insane, which Breivik strongly criticized, saying, ”To a political activist, the worst thing that can happen is to end up in a mental hospital. That would delegitimise everything you stand for.” Survivors of Breivik’s bombing of a government building took the stand yesterday, and survivors of his shooting rampage will likely testify next week. Time has an interesting comparison of the Norwegian and American justice systems as shown by this trial.

Pvt. Bradley Manning had three days of court hearings this week, which unfortunately did not go very well for him. Col. Denise Lind, the military judge in his case, denied a motion to dismiss the charge of “aiding the enemy,” rejecting the argument that the multitude of classified files he shared with WikiLeaks did not harm national security. She also denied a motion to dismiss four other charges for being redundant. However, Manning’s lawyer, David Coombs, did win the opportunity to access government reports about the dangerousness of the leaked documents. Manning’s court martial is scheduled for September.

An anonymous commenter tells me that Alexander Pring-Wilson‘s civil case settled on Tuesday. This case involved whether a homeowner’s insurance policy on his home should be held responsible for the damages that were awarded to the estate of Michael Colono, whom Pring-Wilson killed in a fight back in 2003 (he’s always maintained it was self-defense). This week, the insurance company agreed to pay Colono’s estate, represented by executrix Cindy Guzman. This is a case that I’ve been following for a long time, and I am glad that both Colono’s relatives and Pring-Wilson can finally put this mess behind them and move on with their lives.

Sgt. Gary Stein was officially given an “other than honorable” discharge from the armed forces for creating the Facebook group, “Armed Forces Tea Party,” and posting criticism of President Obama. He vows to appeal, and he is also launching his own radio show. After the decision, Sgt. Stein posted on Facebook, ”Even though I will be discharged no one can take the title of Marine away from me… Today is just the start of the rest of my life. Semper Fi.”

Dominique Strauss-Kahn recently did an interview with Edward J. Epstein, who wrote an article in the NY Review of Books last year suggesting that the infamous attempted rape case may have been a set-up. DSK agreed with this sentiment in the interview and shared a few new thoughts and observations, which are interesting to read since he has rarely spoken publicly about the case. The interview is part of Epstein’s new book, entitled “Three Days in May.”

Lawyers for George Zimmerman disclosed that their client raised over $200,000 to help with legal bills via his (now defunct) website. Unfortunately for Zimmerman, this triggered a new dispute over bail, with prosecutors asking that his bond be increased, and a lawyer for Trayvon Martin’s family accusing him of deceiving the court by failing to disclose the sum earlier.

The Internet is a great thing. It allows people to find information about almost anything without having to go to a library or bookstore, and allows people (like me!) to express their views who otherwise would not be able to. But that can actually be a bad thing, as many recent tweets about George Zimmerman illustrate.

Unsurprisingly, when Zimmerman was released on bail last night, hordes of angry, often not very intelligent people took to Twitter to proclaim things like, “Ima kill zimmerman myself,” and “I WOULD KILL DA SHYT OUTTA DAT ZIMMERMAN DUDE IF I SAW HIS ASSS,” and “Start Writing Your Will! Justices Has Not Been Served.” *

And those are among the milder ones.

Continue reading…

After appearing in court on Friday, being granted $150,000 bail, and apologizing to the parents of Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman could be out of jail any day now, once the logistics of posting the bail and finding him a place to stay are finalized. Also at the bail hearing, Zimmerman’s defense lawyer questioned an investigator for the prosecution, going line by line through the probable cause affidavit that allowed him to be arrested and charged with second-degree murder.

Police reports from the night of the shooting were released before the bail hearing, which the Hinky Meter does a good job of analyzing. What’s clear is that Zimmerman saw Martin walking down the street, thought he looked suspicious, and followed him. I think he did act wrongly by doing this. People have a right to walk through publicly-accessible land without being questioned or followed, and what Martin was doing was not Zimmerman’s business. But Zimmerman claims he was walking back to his vehicle when confronted by Martin, a claim that the investigator on Friday admitted there was no evidence to disprove.

As I’ve written before, I support Stand Your Ground laws and the concept that people have a right to use force in self-defense, regardless of whether they are at home or in a public place, and regardless of whether they attempt to run away first. But according to a rundown of the pros and cons of the case by Alan Dershowitz, this is what Florida’s much-debated Stand Your Ground law says:

“Though this statute is anything but a model of clarity, it does suggest that whoever ‘provokes’ a deadly encounter has a heavy burden of justification in claiming self-defense. But the statute doesn’t define ‘provokes,’ and that ambiguous word may hold the key to the outcome of this tragic case.

If provocation is limited to a physical assault, and if Zimmerman’s account that Martin blindsided him with a punch is believed, then Zimmerman did not provoke the encounter. But if provocation includes following the victim and harassing him, then Zimmerman may well qualify as a provocateur. Moreover, a jury may believe that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation by grabbing Martin. This would almost certainly constitute provocation.

But to complicate matters further, even a provocateur has the legal right to defend himself under Florida law if he can’t escape and if he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, as Zimmerman claims he was.”

This is one part of the law that I disagree with. In my opinion, a provocateur should not have the legal right to defend him or herself because by definition, that is not self-defense. By deciding to provoke someone, whether by physically assaulting them, following them without a good reason, or insulting them unjustly, you are choosing to become an aggressor. Every person should have a right to self-defense against an aggressor, but an aggressor shouldn’t have a right to self-defense against a victim.

Unfortunately, no one knows what side of this distinction Zimmerman falls on, and perhaps we will never know.

Yesterday’s New York Times brings us the story of Albert Holland, Jr., who was sentenced to death for first-degree murder in 1996 after a trial, and later a retrial, in Florida. After he exhausted his state-level appeals, he filed a habeas corpus petition, which eventually went to the Supreme Court and was granted in 2010. Recently, a lower court awarded him a third trial. The reason for all these appeals? Holland has had to deal with one incompetent lawyer after another and was not allowed to represent himself. One ended up in jail for domestic violence and drug use, and later died of an overdose. The next was a friend of the first lawyer, who in addition to representing Holland, also represented his predecessor when he sued Holland for $40,000 in legal fees. Another lawyer filed the habeas petition 5 weeks late, despite repeated letters from Holland reminding him of the importance of the deadline, and failed to answer Holland’s questions about the status of his case.

Due in large part to Holland’s knowledge and advocacy, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and ultimately ruled in his favor, overruling the district court and appeals court’s’ decisions to deny the petition because it was late. A lower federal judge, Patricia Seitz, then paved the way for a new trial when she ruled that the state court had violated his Sixth Amendment rights by denying his repeated requests to represent himself.

Although he has been described as mentally ill, Holland has served as an excellent lawyer for himself. Justice Breyer praised him for keeping track of the deadlines for appealing death sentences better than his lawyers had. Holland also pointed out that the crime of attempted felony murder, which he had been indicted on, did not exist under Florida law. And he made the (ultimately successful) argument, supported by established precedent, that legal training is not a requirement for someone to be allowed to represent himself.

This case shows that persistence can pay off, and that sometimes ordinary people can do a better job than experts. Good for Holland for having the intelligence and the wherewithal to make sure that his legal rights were protected when his attorneys were unable and/or unwilling to do so.

Back in December, Tarek Mehanna was convicted in federal court of supporting Al Qaeda and conspiring to murder U.S. troops in Iraq. He had posted numerous writings and videos on the Internet that the government characterized as pro-Al Qaeda and pro-jihad. In 2004, he traveled to Yemen, allegedly looking to attend a terrorist training camp (which he never attended).

On Thursday, he was sentenced to 17 years in prison for these actions. He also gave a long, defiant speech in which he described his upbringing, the books and historical figures that influenced him, and his dedication to defending people who are being oppressed, which he says is happening to Muslims at the hands of the U.S. Here are some excerpts:

Continue reading…

As almost the whole world knows, George Zimmerman was charged with second degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin and is now in jail awaiting trial.

No matter what you think of Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence, Mike Tyson’s comments were just a bit excessive. This is what he said in an interview with Yahoo News:

“Even though this is the best country in the world, certain laws in this country are a disgrace to a nation of savages. It’s a majority versus a minority. That’s the way God planned it. He didn’t want to do something about it, He wanted us to do something about it. And if we don’t, it’s gonna stay this way. We have to continue tweeting, we have to continue marching, we have to continue fighting for Trayvon Martin. If that’s not the case, he was killed in vain, and we’re just waiting for it to happen to our children. He’ll have gotten away with impunity. It’s a disgrace that man hasn’t been dragged out of his house and tied to a car and taken away. That’s the only kind of retribution that people like that understand. It’s a disgrace that man hasn’t been shot yet. Forget about him being arrested–the fact that he hasn’t been shot yet is a disgrace. That’s how I feel personally about it.”

Yikes. How about letting the justice system run its course?

The Boston Phoenix recently did an interesting front-page article about the police investigation into the “Craigslist killer” case three years ago. Among the most noteworthy (and creepy) things that came out in the article was the Boston Police Department’s subpoena of presumed (although never actually found guilty in court) killer Philip Markoff’s Facebook account.

The documents sent to the cops include all the wall posts that Markoff made, all the photos he uploaded or was tagged in, a list of his friends, and all of the times he ever logged in and IP addresses he used. What makes it even worse is that, if the Markoff case is any example, subpoenas don’t just invade the privacy of the person under investigation, they also reveal information about that person’s friends, who most likely have nothing to do with the suspected crime.

As Chris Matyszczyk at CNET points out,

“The joy of Facebook — for those who find it joyous — is that it provides a vehicle for the sheer spontaneity of communication. You want people to make contact with your life, your friends, your happenings, your feelings, even. You want them to do it as soon as possible.

However, it’s not like normal human spontaneity, which can dissipate and become a memory. It’s recorded.”

Facebook does not notify users when their information is subpoenaed, nor is it even willing to say how many subpoenas it has received or responded to over the years. In other words, law enforcement could be poring through your Facebook data right now, and you wouldn’t even know it.