CAPR suspends support for Leah-Lynn Plante

  • Posted on: 29 October 2012
  • By: worker

<table><tr><td>From <a href=" Against Political Repression</a>:

The Committee Against Political Repression will be suspending support for Leah-Lynn Plante.

Leah was released from prison on October 17 after appearing before the grand jury investigating anarchists. We do not know what was said at that hearing. In the time since her release, Leah has not offered details regarding the subjects of the hearing, her response, or about her release. CAPR is withdrawing support for Leah until we get information regarding her grand jury hearing.

Meanwhile, Matt Duran and Kteeo Olejnik remain in prison, steadfast in their refusal to aid the government in its persecution of anarchists. CAPR will continue to do everything we can to support them, and we urge everyone who wants a more free, equal, humane society to do the same.</td><td><img title="All power to the resistors. Our job is to shrink the voltage." src=""></td></tr><...

1) Write to them or send them books
Katherine Olejnik #42592-086
FDC SeaTac,
P.O. Box 13900
Seattle, WA 98198

Matthew Kyle Duran #42565-086
FDC SeaTac
P.O. Box 13900
Seattle, WA 98198

2) Donate funds for legal and material support

3) Have a solidarity action in your community


Were is Leahs statement on all of this?

Read the fucking thing. She is not willing to give a statement.

But did you notice how cute and supple her body is! I sure did!


Finally, the nude video we were all waiting for!

So this is what Derrick Jensen does in his spare time...that and make raccoon sweaters.

What? What didja think those cute liberal chicks from posh universities were being recruited in the DGR cult for!?

(Derrick gloats like a good ol' Billy Jay Clinton)

Is Committee Against Political Repression still cashing in on Leah ?

Anyone who has objectified this girls body in any way has contributed to this division. Where as I feel it selfish on her behalf to ignore her comrades who wait in fear for her to break her silence I feel that bitter trash sitting on line waiting for a news story to tag with their egoist feces and sexual impotence deserve their head bounced off a wall. And whoever commented on her being sexually assaulted...hate is what youve created and may that be what you drown in.You're a cancer on this community. Go back to the hell hole culture in which you came. You deserve each other.

Who said anything about her being sexually assaulted?

As the anon who made the rude comment about how she (and scott and carrie) looked good, that so pissed her off, I'm gonna have to say that I'm taking it back. you're right dude, I'm not your comrade, and your shitty vegan PC PORTLAND politics led directly to where we always thought they would. officially NOT HOT in my book. scott and carrie still look pretty good though.

don't forget hottie mc hottpants. yeah you know who I'm talking about.

Is Phil Collins an anarchist ?

If Maddy hadn't gotten served than sure, wait it out and decide internally in regards to support. But now that other people are getting rounded up, you need to say somethin. Sometimes you just gotta show a little strength and meet the challenges faced, its what lifes about. And I would be frustrated too, you get a statement about people calling you names but not about what actually happened? Sheesh

This is a terribly done, weak statement that will only fuel the fire for people who want to give her the benefit of the doubt against all evidence.

Please elaborate. Because I have no idea what the fuck you just said.

what evidence? isn't having substantive evidence and releasing it in a ethical way like the whole point of reasoned anti-repression work?

Replying to the wrong post there, friend.

She was the one gaining the quite a lot of attention. Her release could have been too put out the flames she was fueling. They could also be building a case against her for some other charges. Or she could have folded, but all speculation is just speculation at this point.

"Leah was released from prison on October 17 after appearing before the grand jury investigating anarchists."

There's no speculation regarding that.

not just in the little world of rad political stuff ,but in "non-political" cases as well(drugs,etc.) a good rule of thumb is that if someone is bounced out of jail apart from co-defendants and without explanation then may very well be cooperating.

And also done as snitch jacketing. Lets not pretend like the feds don't do that as well. We don't know what's happening and really doing prisoner support for someone who isn't in prison seems pointless anyway.

fuck that, that was taken down here for a reason.

saying "i don't know" when one's mental health is getting fucked is only "cooperation" from the perspective of an unempathetic ideologue. based on what we *know*, she did not actually make a case against anyone, and *that's* what fucking matters.

I'm impressed by the lengths people are going to to defend what she may or may not have said - even assuming that she did say something.

But it's cool, I'm sure Matt and Kteeo's mental health is doing just fine in prison. Leah might have just been doing what she needed to - cooperating with a state weapon being used against her comrades.

did you even read the link posted above my post, speculator? all i did was quote what was in that post (the one removed from this site).

"I don't know x" =/= snitching against/incriminating x

Oh, but it does... and that is the whole problem with Grand Juries.

You answer "I dont know X". They tap you two months later saying "X" to someone. Then they call you aside and tell you perjured yourself in a GJ and are looking at long years for perjury. They insinuate the jailing will be with a known rapist.

Then they offer immunity in exchange for cooperation.

Of course, had you not gone to GJ in the first place, it would have been much less time than perjury. But you smarter and you think you can game them with evasives.

Thus, ended up a snitch.

99% of the time, when you go to GJ, that is what happens.

remember how smart you think you were in a few months.

The funny thing about a wall of silence is that it only works when there's a wall of silence. Saying "I don't know" isn't silent. Maybe YOU can't think of ways in which saying "I don't know" would hurt someone, but the prosecutor does that for a living, every day of their life. There's a reason why defense attorneys, across the board, tell you not to say anything one way or another, even "I don't know" without their being present. At the very least, it's perjury if they find evidence otherwise (perjury cases are notoriously easy to convict on little evidence). Whether she said "I don't know" because of her mental health or not is irrelevant to the fundamental issue of answering questions for the GJ, and while I hope for nothing but the best for her well-being, you can't tell me that this isn't a bit of fucking crucial information.

Just to point out, that video is extremely informative, and *everyone* who plans on ever being in the US should watch it.

agreed. this link should be reposted every month or so for people who have yet to see it.
it would be nice if it had a label though, so that people knew it was more worthwhile than most of the links people post.


im sorry but fuck her mental health... this is exactly the kind of weak garbage that needs to be cut out of our world if we are to survive repression... mental health issues are real and serious, but if you have serious problems and cant handle 18 months than you have NO FUCKING BUSINESS in an illegal movement to overthrow the state, which is exactly what anarchy is. if you arent strong enough to do jail time than please please get out now, this isnt for kids it isnt a cool experience for college kids this is real ass life and real ass war against a stronger enemy. if you think anarchy is puppet shows and vegan cakes, youre totally wrong. we should be prepared for this shit by now

no, this is stupid, stupid, stupid. we are all fragile and we have to deal with that fact if we want to be a serious threat to anything.

"we are all fragile"
Speak for yourself. I've never been subject to a GJ, but I do know that I don't give in to pressure from police, and that the more they press and fuck with me, the more I harden the fuck up. Yeah, getting stuck in a cell sucks, but some of us just deal with it, tyvm. And something tells me that doesn't have to be an impossible course to take even in a GJ, since we know for a fact at least two of the three are still holding up.

Seriously, if everyone was "fragile," then why is it flips are apparently so easy to come by in our circles, and yet entire criminal organizations can get by without a fucking one? Maybe because in criminal culture, people fucking know you do not, EVER, say anything to land someone else in jail (even members of rival gangs, for that matter). But in our circles, whenever someone flips, you get ass-hats like yourself coddling over them - "There are no snitches! They're just *fragile*! We need to shower them with love!" This world is in fucking flames, you don't get to be fragile if you want to fight it.

Solidarity and love to the GJR, all of my hate and rage to any and all snitches.

I'm not saying that snitches aren't snitches, or that they should not be treated like snitches, I'm saying that rededicating ourselves, saying we will harden the fuck up, is not a strategy at all.

Yeah, actually, it is. Either harden the fuck up, or play a different game. Unless, of course, you have some better idea to keep us from ending up dead or in jail.

Who's hypocritical?
Who's hypocritical? "civilization -- the thing that literally keeps billions of us fed and clothed every day" -- This is why "we" are losing, that "we" depend on, and defend, this monster called civilization, not because Derrick called the cops when his life was threatened. Anarchists are too busy needlessly busting shit up and assaulting people they don't like to really effect change. That is why "our" movement has become hopelessly irrelevant. If I had to depend on anarchists to defend me if I were assaulted, I'd be scared shitless.

... that quote doesn't really apply here, but troll away I guess

yeah, actually, it does.

No, it really doesn't. The topic of discussion is "don't talk to the police/feds." Don't do it, or don't play. I'm not sure how you're not getting this.

I am presenting an alternate argument. When someone is threatening your life/stalking you/etc, talk to whoever or whatever will get them to stop. If the side effect is that some little bitches who wouldn't have protected you anyway "don't like you" - too bad.

you're presenting an 'alternate argument' about an unrelated issue. leah plante was not being stalked

no, it's not. you can't just exhort people to become better at keeping their mouths shut and expect that to work. all you're doing by saying this is anonymously bragging. Criminal organizations do not prevent snitching by looking at themselves in the mirror and telling themselves that state intimidation and jail time mean nothing to them. The reason they don't snitch is because they can expect severe consequences if they do.

sounds like a solution to me

it could be, except I don't think most anarchists would even consider physically harming people they thought were their friends

Fuck that noise, someone snitches on me, I'd have no issue with fucking them up. Well, no *ethical* issue with fucking them up; if I'm not using some sort of weapon I'm not really all that threatening.

You're so tough! A true anarchist instills fear in the hearts of His enemies. Radical healing, collective liberation, and popular education are for women and queers.

Yes, because "I'm not really all that threatening" is the true signifier of a manarchist.

"Play a different game"

Oh that's cool, because choosing to be housemates with someone suspected of smashing a window during a blackbloc is a game only for the xHardestx. ugh.

"puppet shows" ! How dare you criticize the Mysterious Rabbit Puppet Army ! How will people read the Deep Green Resistance book, which is anti-anarchist but MRPA makes people think it must be anarchist, along with the Move organization out of Philly.

"Deep Green Resistance (DGR) is an environmental movement that views mainstream environmental activism as being largely ineffective."

They consider it to be ineffective, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT LEADING IT.
It will be effective, WHEN THEY ARE LEADING IT.

I'm sorry but I'm weak. I would have to cooporate with the Feds because being raped in jail isn't an option. I didn't sign up for that. I just want to enjoy communal lifestyle and easy access to shamanistic hot looking chicks. I wouldn't sellout for free though. I have to much respect for you guys. I'd have to get a package deal which includes witness protection, financial assistance, etc.

There is NO WAY that Leah got released from jail WITHOUT cooperating with the grand jury (specifically, answering all of the questions). THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO GET OUT OF JAIL. Do you not understand that? Have you never been to jail?
Kteeo & Matt D. are still in there and they can be released just like Leah if they snitch just like Leah clearly has.

Real talk.

simply not true, look at the history of other grand jury resisters. You can't be put in for a defacto life sentence. In fact, if you can show that you wouldn't talk ever anyway or that you know nothing, there's a legal loophole that allows for your release.

"This is a terribly done, weak statement that will only fuel the fire for people who want to give her the benefit of the doubt against all evidence."

The problem is that we don't have any evidence of what went down in the GJ room and Leah is unwilling to share that information with anyone. The problem is we don't know the extent to which Leah cooperated with the GJ or whether or not she snitched. Is Leah being hella dodgy and unprincipled? Yes! Should people trust Leah? No! But anything beyond that is just speculation.

Also if CAPR was giving Leah the "benefit of the doubt" they wouldn't have suspended their support for her.

CAPR repeatedly asked people to assume non-cooperation on behalf of all resistors until demonstrated otherwise. So I'm going to keep assuming non-cooperation until demonstrated otherwise, even if CAPR thinks it can be turned on or off like a light switch.

demonstrated otherwise... you mean like being released perhaps?

People have been released from jail or not jailed even though they refused to cooperate with grand juries

Right, but 2 of her friends went in before, and will come out after. What did she do differently?

There are definitely a handful of obvious differences, not to mention some we may not know (related to her position in the grand jury investigation), between her and the others. Let's not speculate.

Had her picture put up on Al Jazeera...what? Just saying.

I think the only people whkse concern this is and who should be making anything resembling public statements are the Portland community and anyone possibly directly effected. I'm interested too, but put down the pitchforks and let's act with just abtad of

Concern troll is concerned?

"Leah was released from prison on October 17 after appearing before the grand jury investigating anarchists."

She cooperated with the grand jury. Grand juries are secret, so you'll never have a transcript. The whole point of resisting the grand jury was not cooperating. She cooperated, after 3 days in jail.

Oh? You have some knowledge that isn't being shared? 'Cause it sure sounds like is in the dark. Should they invent something so that you can sate your rage? Cop?

Let's just leave this one alone.

"CAPR is withdrawing support for Leah until we get information regarding her grand jury hearing."

Way to take center stage at the first opportunity to do so, with the most capricious of statements. Is CAPR just some form of inverted echo of every available event? Couldn't they have waited til hearing about what Leah actually said in order to save us from having to read their switched stance again? Or is CAPR just trying to be the first to go on record as having officially 'withdrawn support' for someone who ended up snitching? This opportunism makes the anarchist arena look even more like a political spectacle

Ya know if CAPR would have continued to support Leah and NOT publicly addressed her unaccountable and sketchy-ass behavior you all would be criticizing CAPR for withholding relevant information. In fact you all would be calling CAPR pig fuckers right now. So what should CAPR have done? Held a circle jerk to "Baby I'm An Anarchist"? Sat around and drank mediocre coffee at the Red and Black Cafe? Read Slingshot Magazine while discussing the pros and cons of nutritional yeast? Haters gonna hate, trollz gonna troll.

The coffee is delicious, please leave the coffee at the Red & Black out of this.

The coffee is usually mediocre at best (which is better then the service even on a good day), but it beats the hell out of Sweet Pea. I think we can all agree on that...

How dare you snitch jacket Red & Blacks coffee.

Soooo anyway... Against me circle jerk this saturday? eh? anybody? eh?

This statement about Sweet Pea is weak and terribly done! It will only fuel the fire for people who want to give it the benefit of the doubt against all evidence.

Hey! Don't be speculatin! We got to be patient!

I think that you should have waited for leah's statement on the coffee before publishing this.

I find the coffee rather acrid and perhaps over-roasted. Also why don't they french press their coffee?

Because this is America.

yeah, you mean Freedom Press.

Wrong! This is portland fool!

- A Troll


"Baby I'm An Anarchist"? You're posing! I've been to quite a few circle jerks hosted by the R&B and it's never been to "Baby I'm An Anarchist"!

Yeah, more like "The Union Makes Us Strong"
How's that going for ya?

I think everyone recognizes that it's a difficult and frightening situation and it's difficult to know what to do when you don't have all the information you need...

Circle jerk! They're fun!!!

The important part to doing this now, is the fact that Leah has had time address their release from prison and hasn't. Despite mental health issues they deal with they were able to issue an official response to reading the comments regarding their appearance but nothing about their release? Regardless of whether Leah talked or not, Leah knew that their release had heavy implications for others involved in the grand jury, as well as heavy implications for the community Leah was involved in.

okay so why isn't this part of the statement? What concerns were weighed? how long was waited? What are the next steps? Is anyone in touch with her? Who? What was their response to the possible withdrawal of support. etc. So vague for such a big thing. Leah could have prevented all this by at least being transparent, no one's arguing against that, just that this statement is about as un-informative as it gets for those of us trying to make our own decisions about support, etc

If they don't know what happened in the gran jury what do you want from them. Drama? Shit-talk? Is this a fucking soap opera to you?

The Jury of all of our grandmothers.

Exactly!!! Leah issued a statement about how she was mad that people were calling her pretty/attractive/beautiful/skinny. Her "mental health issues" did not stand in the way of releasing that ~radical feminist~ statement......

hah, more like liberal feminist

man i wish my mental health issues were this convenient

Leah needs to put out a damn statement to all anarchists explaining what's up.... otherwise it will soon be pretty clear that Leah has chosen to be silent with us and talk to the state.

Should we rather give Leah the benefit of the doubt even longer and continue to support her when she IS NOT proving to us that she isn't a fucking snitch ...I mean I guess its clear she talked but to what extent? And now she's AWOL??? Sketchy...maybe she know what snitches get.

You mean stitches? Fuck yeah! I'm saying this because people *always* beat the shit out of snitches...and to great effect! Would-be snitches are totally quaking in their boots b/c they know that physical retribution by former comrades is not only swift but also always way worse that the months or years of prison they're facing. This strategy is totally the best one.

I've got news for you. Here's what's going to happen. Eventually Leah is going to release a statement saying "It's okay that I cooperated because I only answered these unimportant questions" and then a bunch of people will say "See! She didn't snitch!" except we only have her word and nothing else because grand juries are secret. This has happened WITH EVERY OTHER GRAND JURY concerning anarchists. The entire point though, of the grand jury resistance is the fact that the grand juries are secret and you never know what was said. So you RESIST cooperating. The entire point of all this shit and the reason the 3 of them were put in prison initially is for NOT COOPERATING. She cooperated, after 3 days, and was therefore released. You're never going to get more information that can be verified beyond that.

And Maddy was served literally a week or less than a week after her cooperation and released. Do the math.

1) "She cooperated, after 3 days, and was therefore released."

2) "You're never going to get more information that can be verified beyond that."

The first clause in #1 is NOT information. Not yet, anyway. Can you verify that she cooperated? Prove it. Further, you have not defined "cooperation." You have no idea what she said beyond the minimal evidence that has been given out. Does that constitute "cooperation?"

And if so, what did Matt and Kteeo say? Do you know? Perhaps they forked over more information than you know, but the prosecutor decided to jail them anyway when they stopped answering after a little while. Without transcripts, hey, we won't ever find out. There's an assumption here that not cooperating at all leads to prison, and even the mildest form of cooperation leads to freedom. I hate to inform you that federal prosecutors have a hell of a lot more discretion than that, and so do judges.

She appeared in court several times. Was *that* cooperation? Perhaps she should have stayed home, which would have been a far better demonstration of non-cooperation in my book. Let the police arrest her and drag her into court against her will, shackled. Showing up for those court dates constitutes a form of cooperation, if a minimal one: it recognizes the judicial authority of the state to compel a witness to appear. (See David Gilbert's example for a different way to approach this.) So what's the threshold of "cooperation" here?

Also remarkable how willing people are to simply assume bona fides on the part of the feds. OF COURSE she cooperated, because she was released, and the federal government will *only* release those who play ball. Those who don't naturally spend the full term of the grand jury in prison. It wouldn't *possibly* occur to them to release her for other reasons, most of which are being demonstrated in these forums and the various denunciations aimed her way. So, congratulations, feds -- you've met one of your objectives, which is to set off a round of doubt, ostracizing, and forever baseless speculation. Occam's Razor cuts two ways on this case: she cooperated (easy answer), or she was released anyway, with the likelihood that it'd set people at each other's throats and destroy the unity that existed when she went to jail on the 10th. The latter seems like it accomplishes a hell of a lot more for the state than the former. And let's say she didn't "cooperate" other than what she has told others she said. Do you think that was sufficient reason for her release? They might well have thrown her right back in that cell.

It'll be interesting if for some reason others are released before their expected terms are up and what type of knitting-circle gossip envelops them. Because that's essentially what this is and all it ever will be.

"knitting circle" gossip == nice touch. tell those old wives to hold their tongues!

I knit. I'm a guy. And young. But not a gossip. Sorry to break the stereotype.

No such thing as stereotypes, brah!

yeah, bro! down with those repressive stereotypes!

"It'll be interesting if for some reason others are released before their expected terms are up and what type of knitting-circle gossip envelops them."

Did you mean to say, if they get released within days of being arrested, if they don't tell people they were released until several days later, if they don't make any statement on what happened or whether they cooperated, if the skip town afterward....Because, yeah, I bet people would get suspicious and start wondering aloud. After all, two entire weeks of that kind of bullshit is what got us into this "knitting-circle." But I guess you missed all that the first two dozen times someone posted it today.

Just a question: do you know her personally? When you say "us" are you including her in that? Or did she get kicked of "us" after a 14-day waiting period? What kind of group membership are we talking about here? Is there a secret handshake? Yearly dues?

I didn't miss anything posted today. I question the idea that an individual has some sort of responsibility, particularly as a free woman, to a group of anonymous posters on a message board, or to a group that purportedly represents her interests -- or did -- and that of everyone else in the Pacific Northwest called before a grand jury. If I were in that position, I certainly wouldn't let them speak for me, or really care if they were endorsing or suspending their support like the Democratic National Committee.

The demands being made on her on this board basically justify her telling everyone her to go fuck themselves. She's highly intelligent and you can be sure the minute she was released she knew this is *exactly* what people would be thinking. Had she said something, it probably wouldn't matter to 75% of the people here anyway; the fact that she was released would be evidence enough and you know it. The rest of the bullshit about not making a statement, or skipping town, or not telling people she was released, is all justification after the fact to support what I guarantee was an opinion most people already held for the last two weeks but were too afraid to say out loud. Now there seems to be a sufficient reason to unleash it, with an "official" source "suspending" their support and all, so...have at it.

oh shut the fuck up and can the pathetic (and poor) use of egoism as some sort of justification for her silence.

she obviously took a role in asking for 'support' from the masses in all those glamorshots and statements she was glad to make beforehand.

speculation whether she talked or not is, obviously, pure speculation. but asking we who are not her close friends to just stay quiet and stop asking questions is fucking idiotic. that's some serious unaccountable party's-inner-circle type shit.

if she doesn't owe the anonymous a statement, we don't owe her sympathy either.

Here's some elementary logic for you (point 2) which your "shut the fuck up" comment deserves.

1. All three have taken a role in asking for support. Whether or not those are "glamour shots" -- hey, decide for yourself. That's not really an area of interest of mine. But look at some of the other photos: Matt's holding a cat. Is that not a sympathetic pose to strike? He looks as harmless as a sophomore class president, and that photo has gone far and wide. Seems to me like most people might be inclined to interpret that in a sympathetic way. And he's released statements describing how great it is that the other prisoners are treating him well as someone who didn't "snitch," which sorta' makes him look pretty damn good, wouldn't you agree? So let's not get into egoism here because there's plenty of that to go around. I myself heard the whispers and knew this was coming.

2. No one's asking you to "stay quiet." Say whatever the hell you want. But be prepared to defend the validity and usefulness of your "questions" -- and the possibility of their being proven -- because most of what's here is nothing but *post hoc ergo propter hoc*. They're not questions; they're conclusions. I'm asking you to provide some fucking *evidence* for the *assertions* that are being leveled at her. Otherwise, they're just that: assertions. We have absolutely no idea what occurred in that room. None. Zero.

She doesn't have to provide it, because she can't: she can't prove a negative, and I'm doubtful after sorting through the hostility being vented here that many people were inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt *the second* she walked out of SeaTac. Were the people on this board excoriating her now likely to have taken her at her word a few weeks ago? Realistically? Hell no. So it really doesn't matter what she says. What questions, precisely, would you like her to answer that would satisfy you and maybe make you issue an apology? Name a few.

3. People want to vent their frustrations, because they think their issuance or withholding of sympathy has world-historical significance to the future of anarchism, great. I don't really think what you're getting at is sympathy, because she hasn't asked you for it. What you do owe her is the benefit of the doubt, which is an entirely different matter. And to anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills, this entire pile-on is laughable, all *ad hom*, and totally counterproductive. It's not worth 205 comments or the 300 it'll probably be tomorrow. And what's almost certain is that the feds are reading this and yukking it up. If they do this one more time with somebody else some of you (not necessarily you) will be ready to start show trials.

4. I doubt anyone here has any idea where she is, but perhaps somebody might want to consider -- based on her history -- the idea that she might be hospitalized. Hey, I don't know. Just a thought.

But yeah, I know you're all a lot tougher and have been through this before, so bring on the hellfire and righteous indignation.

If Leah had provided a statement regarding her testimony in front of the grand jury (as others have done), I may be have been more inclined to believe her, had she not named any names. But I think it is also important to note that, Leah made it publicly and widely known that she was going to resist the grand jury. Within a week, she caved and went before the grand jury. Regardless of the reason, this will likely be used against Matt and Kteeo and any others who may be subpoenaed. Contempt of court can only be used as long as it is coercive and must be stopped as soon as it is punitive. By refusing to testify, getting contempt of court, and then gaving and going in front of the grand jury, Leah can be used an example to show that Matt and Kteeo's continued incarceration is coercive and not punitive.

As for the matter of giving get the benefit of the doubt, it has been two weeks since she was released and another person has been subpoenaed and will likely face contempt of court. How much more of the benefit do you want to give someone who has shown (just through the facts above) questionable and selfish behavior?

if you were a brown dude going up against this shit, you'd probably want to look like you were on your high school's damn asb, too

comparing leah's situation to matt's is just ridiculous

um, some of us have been through shit like this before.

"We have absolutely no idea what occurred in that room. None. Zero."

We do have some idea of what must have happened. We aren't obliged to play dumb here.

Giving her the benefit of the doubt means I think she feels bad that she testified, and that was why she used an anti-sexism announcement and her mental health to avoid being forthcoming. I am giving her the benefit of the doubt.

I admit I wasn't inclined to believe whatever she said when the left SeaTac. But that's because walking out of a police station saying you didn't talk is one thing, walking out of a grand jury is another. And she didn't even say she didn't talk! Only for me/us not to ask such a triggering question. It's offensive.

It would have made a huge difference to me if she had made a statement.

I don't think she should act in any particular way based on what people on @news say. Obviously she has to make her decisions based on her own concerns and her loyalty to her actual friends. but this case is clearly of concern to people who aren't directly involved because the US anarchist movement needs to figure out how to resist grand juries!

The US Anarchist Movement needs to figure out how to exist in the first place.

enjoying yourself keyboard warrior?

Best part of the day.


"highly intelligent" = manipulative, knows how to play to people's emotions

Leah released a "documentary" of herself talking about how this is a "Witch hunt" and how she would never cooperate...... and then she got released BECAUSE SHE COOPERATED LOL !!!11111

Leah admitted cooperating the the grand jury from her first grand jury appearance. She said that she knew who Dennison W. is. !!

The speculation is due to the fact that Leah hasn't addressed questions about her release or her level of cooperation. Had she been released, explained why, and given a clear commitment to continued non-cooperation, there wouldn't be the same level of distrust that is currently being promoted. If anyone is to blame for all of the drama and gossip surrounding the release, it's Leah for a refusal to own her actions or explain them in any sort of meaningful way to those who may be impacted.

is it possible that a gag order would prevent her from making a statement?

yes, if she chose to follow it. But she could "leak" a list of what questions were asked anonymously to fellow comrades etc. It would be nice to know WHO they asked about for example.


AWOL? Who gives the official leave? A-news anarchocops?

Perhaps, but there are these things called gag orders which prevent one from saying anything about an ongoing investigation or face further imprisonment. Not saying anything one way or another, but if she did get asked any questions, it's possible she's under a gag order and cannot release a statement, regardless of whether she cooperated.

Meh... It's been two weeks CAPR is the most direct line of communication to the subpoenas, if leah isn't talking to anyone what are they supposed to do just keep waiting? Or are you just trying to find some reason to blame them?

It seems like you should be upset with leah for putting us through this, not a fucking support group that is being kept in the dark by someone that was previously very vocal through them.

They waited two weeks and suspended supported without blaming. What do you want?

No shit. Make this personally known first, let it simmer and waitbto go public. Fucking ridiculous.

I posted this and even though its starting to seek pretty obvious what happened, we gotta be patient for a little longer..... Where is your statement to the anti authoritarian community Leah???? If Leah doesn't release a statement sometime soon it is not unjustified for people to start assuming the worse.

Where is your statement Leah?

I posted the link above that is...not the article

AnarchistNews had a post on here that was called "Leah-Lynn Plante cooperates" and that post has been deleted. WTH (That stands for ~what the hell~)

fucking damnit

an anonymous post on tumblr, most convincing.

If you look, it was reposted on tumblr from A-news. It apparently was posted and then removed quickly, I'm guessing to make sure the claims are true. I'd expected it to be posted on here again soon because we already know she cooperated. This other article just added a few more details. I wouldn't be surprised if it is all true.

Hey let me totally fuck up and instead of taking responsibility for my actions write a stinging peice criticizing the way people talked about me on the internet.

If the above is mostly true that is gonna be my takeaway from this. Anarchists need to quit being a bunch of fucking liberals.

Let me help with that: Booooooo hoooooo people are calling me ATTRACTIVE on the internet. Let me get mad at them (because i have a ton of support and am now embarrassed because i fucked up) because they think I am hot. For fuck sakes like you haven't ever read youtube comments give me a break. People need to take refuckingsponsibility for their actions and stop blaming anonymous commenters on the internet for their own fuck ups.

Life is so hard when people are paying attention to you.

It is really insane that that is the only statement she made upon being released. While we all know it's really terrible and awful to be called cute, cooperating with a grand jury might be a little worse. Maybe I'm old fashioned.

Nope, not worse. Haven't you been following Michelle Obama and her anti-bullying campaign? We know what anonymous comments on the internet have the ability to do. At least in this case they were mostly positive I mean think about what could have happened if they weren't. Think of the children. I bet you feel bad about what you said now. Sexist.

Being sexualized and objectified by strangers is THREATENING and DEMEANING, it's not a "positive" experience.

Get over yourselves. Criticize the potential snitching. I can't believe the way this is being made about her body. What male snitch have you ever threatened with sexual harasment? The sexualizing comments were harassment before, and the comments here justifying that harassment because she may or may not have snitched are disgusting. Sexual violence is a weapon of torture used by the state and patriarchy. Don't play with it when it's convenient and you want to intimidate someone.

You might not be listening, most likely because you are irrational and have an inability to pay attention. People are not saying misogynistic comments aren't wrong. They are criticizing the fact that she put out a statement immediately upon release about them instead of taking responsibility for what she did.

I will make this really simple:

You do something wrong and instead of take responsibility for it you attack other people.

Hi. Thanks for calling the feminist irrational, very creative.

Anyway, I do understand what you're trying to say. But I strongly disagree because it sets an arbitrary social standard for when and where it's ok to react to sexual harassment. I think that's a dangerous precedent. We should make space and support people when they defend their bodies, regardless of the other circumstances. Do you agree with me that her looks are irrelevant to whether or not she deserves jail support? Yes? Then I don't understand why you can't also agree that her reaction to perverted "supporters" commenting all over about her body, editing her photos, etc. is also irrelevant to issues of whether or not she deserves jail support. It's irrelevant. And we should support her statement against sexual harasment as support for all political prisoners whose support is made conditional on their bodies.

Leah called out the people who sexualized her in comments, and the people who made her picture go viral because they liked it at the expense of the other two folks in jail. That statement was right on. Those dipshits were not in solidarity with her; she owed them nothing besides that very nicely worded fuck you.

Again, I'm not saying anything about what she did or didn't do in the grand jury room. I'm saying the statement she did make was legit. It's irrelevant to the statement she has not yet made.

I don't think we are going to agree on this, I understand exactly what you are saying, I agree that it was positive for her to point out the disgusting reaction from some folks. I mean fuck, celebs have been doing the same thing lately and it has been super helpful for a lot of women (specifically in regards to internet comments.) I most certainly commented on the initial article and I definitely did not make any comments about her appearance, and with that I noticed those who did and just shrugged it off.

But the point is, there are many things she could have pointed out after being in prison. They would ALL be valid. But I am not going to overlook the fact that instead of owning up to whatever happened she attacked her supporters however misguided they might be. That screams out from the tops of buildings of deflection and embarrassment. I 100 percent understand that you don't want to set a precedent in regards to where and when anyone can call out anything they believe to be wrong. But that doesn't mean the reasons for them doing so are the right ones, it doesn't mean the way they are doing it is the right way. And I think you could make a pretty solid argument whether you like it or not that doing it in the way she did (if allegations are true) diminishes the actual intention. Like I said, take responsibility for your actions.

Her behavior now doesn't change that the demand to not be sexualized was LEGIT.

What does it mean for the comrades reading these comments (like myself) to see that respect for bodily integrity and feminism are dependent upon being an upstanding anarchist citizen? f you

because using arguments about bodily integrity and feminism to deflect the fact that you just failed miserably is fucking ridiculous. It is the opposite of taking responsibility for your actions. it sucks and it is not a model for individuals to look up to.

*if that is what happened*

I'm just arguing that they are separate issues. Her statement still stands regardless of the other circumstances and actions. Selectively wielding anti-sexism for people who 'deserve' it is also not a model for individuals to look up to. These comments about her anti-harassment statement confuse the issue about snitching and make them about whether she was right to assert herself about harassment. She was. Always. Regardless of whether she snitched or not or did anything fucked up. Which is why I think these comments are distracting and don't belong here.

the only distraction was her using feminist identity politics to divert attention from her obvious cooperation.

god help you if you are an ugly girl but too pretty is also your doom, everyone harbors a secret hatred for the prettiest girl in the room.

"What does it mean for the comrades reading these comments (like myself) to see that respect for bodily integrity and feminism are dependent upon being an upstanding anarchist citizen? f you"

oh, you've never noticed that before? interesting.

"I am no longer number #42611-086 [because I cooperated with the state against anarchists] and I am not a number on your 0-10 scale of hot or not."

honestly good for her for saying that bc people wouldnt shut the fuck up about her being the hot one when the other women resisted through and through and have gotten barely this much attention.

Anarchists: your fucking priorities.

Right, I get it, if she cooperated and felt guilty it puts a whole different spin on it though.

No. It doesn't. Even snitches can be called out for snitching instead of sexualized for their bodies.

No, take responsibility for your actions AND call out misogyny. You do one and not the other and you just look stupid.

People have the right to defend their bodies no matter who or what they did or didn't do. You don't have to meet some arbitrary political standard to be allowed to do so. Her statement stands on its own.

"It is only not stupid to defend yourself from sexual harasment if and only if you also do XYZ."

Sorry dude, nobody's gotta meet your standards.

It's a pretty low bar honestly.

Well, if her point was to not being looked at as a "hot girl" she has really weird way of going about it.


Yeah, that chick with her short skirt and that body that she was born with and stuff, she's really asking for it.


you are a fucking idiot. clearly there are PRIVILEGES AND SHITTYBULLSHIT parts of being seen as attractive. ever see that popular girl at school flaunt her shit to get her way? that same girl gets hassled in bars and on the street. leah could have approached her propaganda in a way that downplayed her looks as one strategy. i'm not saying that she should have, but also, she fucking could have done different things than post a million pictures of her face doing cute things in cute outfits. and she certainly could have given a lot more attention to kteeo and matt rather than herself, or along with addressing her own situation, particularly as she realized (which of course she did before going into prison) how much more wide spread her name was becoming as compared to matt and kteeo.

*when i say leah, i rlly mean leah and whoever helped with design and publicity etc.


plenty of people facing charges have done publicity without putting their face all over. i personally would like to see this as a trend; while it perhaps dehumanizes the situation, it also circumvents the celebritification that happens. or maybe 50/50 would be nice. for example, those ppl who had RICO charges over I69 stuff didn't plaster their faces everywhere. i imagine that was partially privacy, but also a way to not make it about "them" so much as the place they held.

They didn't plaster their faces around. And no one has heard of them. Interesting.

I still disagree. The three own them had the same cute fashion shoot thingie on the support pages. I like that idea: it made them looks harmless and approachable for getting more widespread attention; I think it was good strategy and it clearly worked. I don't think it was intentional that the conventionally attractive skinny cis-white woman's picture of the three cutesy photos all taken in a similar manner went viral. And I think it says something much worse about the anarchist "solidarity" community and the media that picked up on this than it does about the support strategy-- which was a smart way to get media, and I really don't think elevated Leah above the other three. Though the reception certainly did.

'cis' seems to be everyone's favorite adjective. you can't always tell if someone is trans, you know...

she is white and straight - see, it's not so scary to leave out ~cis~ as an identifier!

Let me make this joke easier for you to understand.

It would be ironic if she knew about the comments, got mad about being sexualized and decided to turn on her comrades so people wouldn't think highly of her anymore.

well, i can't make my point any easier for you to understand - sorry you missed it

i guess that's the joke, here

The Tumblr piece opens:Leah Lynn Plante cooperated with the grand jury. The first time she cooperated was in her first grand jury appearance. She confirmed that she knows Dennison, another grand jury subpoena. Dennison released a statement noting this was insignificant knowledge, as they had posed together for resister press photos.

This is so insignificant as to be laughable.

She has since made one statement to CAPR, in which she said safety concerns prevented her from saying what happened during the grand jury at which she appeared.

So what happens next? CAPR's spook followers on the web... AKA federally instigated "Fusion Center" trolls, create the threat to be passed along by naive anarchos who've never even been to court for a traffic ticket. NICE!

yea they took it down, I still have it on my feed:

"Leah Lynn Plante cooperated with the grand jury. The first time she cooperated was in her first grand jury appearance. She confirmed that she knows Dennison, another grand jury subpoenut. Dennison released a statement noting this was insignificant knowledge, as they had posed together for resister press photos.

Leah delayed the grand jury long enough that day that she could not have a contempt hearing before the courthouse closed. She was re-subpoenaed. At her next court date, she declined to answer any questions and was taken into custody. Less than a week after she was incarcerated, Leah requested a way out of prison from her lawyer. Her lawyer returned with a subpoena for October 17, 2012. She entered that grand jury, spoke, and was released from prison that day."

Not so cute any more, eh?

There have been other cases within the past three years where the state has acted to make non-cooperating defendants implicitly appear as though they are cooperating (e.g. a couple situations in the Midwest Green Scare). It's not like the prosecutors and cops don't read our shit or think about how to best disrupt us. I don't know more about this shit with Leah than anyone else, but from personal experience, I can imagine her getting called in simply to create distrust, and then releasing her.

Also, remember that there are other honorable ways to interact with grand juries than just refusing to go into the courtroom. Craig Rosenbaugh is an asshole, but no one ever accused him of being a snitch no matter how many grand jury rooms he entered.

This is not to make any excuses. If she testified against others, none of the above is even the least bit relevant. But let's wait till we learn more from people who are closer to the case.

I agree with you, but I think with her initial statement attacking the people supporting her and nothing else it is pretty clear that she knows she fucked up at least on some level. Time will tell.

She didn't attack people supporting here.

She said that sexualizing her body was not support because it was demeaning, dehumanizing (after already being dehumanized by jail!), and violent. It certainly wasn't solidarity. Get off your high horse. Anarchists believe you can support people on their own terms. You're a patronizing douche if you really think it's helping someone to have their support predicated on your personal estimation of their body.

There have also been cases in more recent years of people cooperating with grand juries and then being like "I only said this and that, don't worry" but no one is allowed to be in the room, not even your lawyer. That snitch in Pittsburgh from the G20 is one example.

You're never going to get any info on what went on inside the grand jury except from her.

There have also been cases in more recent years of people cooperating with grand juries and then being like "I only said this and that, don't worry"

try santa cruz, right now...

where can i read more about the santa cruz happenings?

Thanks for saying this.

" remember that there are other honorable ways to interact with grand juries than just refusing to go into the courtroom." Are you even paying attention to the grand jury proceedings? None of the prisoners being supported "refused to go into the courtroom." The three people who were initially arrested resisted NOT by "refusing to go into the courtroom" but by going in and REFUSING TO TALK. This is what they went to prison for. This is what people are saying Leah STOPPED doing to be released from prison. Craig Rosebraugh did NOT go into courtrooms and answer questions; he refused to cooperate with 8 grand juries, and even stonewalled a Congressional proceeding he was subpoenaed to attend. He also didn't refuse to release a statement about how he handled it and then disappear vaguely implying that anyone who questioned him didn't respect his mental health.

Hell yeah-We've got to give these pigs the idea that we will NOT show up when called and will defend ourselves if they attempt to come out and get us. Anyone refusing to talk is doing the right thing, but Craig did more by refusing to show up at all.

In Iraq, the US didn't even TRY to subpeona insurgents to ask questions. They knew that any attempt to question anyone meant having to fight a battle and take losses, and we KNOW they lost that war in the end,

Hell, let's just all kill ourselves.

Thanks for saying this. My post to this effect was removed by the censors

"She asks that people do not jump to wild conclusions about her release because they do not apply."

rly wanna know WAHT THE EFF THIS MEANS

hey leah do u read the anarchist news comments???

"We do not know what was said at that hearing. In the time since her release, Leah has not offered details regarding the subjects of the hearing, her response, or about her release."

Unh... MAYBE she under a gag order and immediately goes back to jail if she does the above. SO... If THAT'S the case she's been disenfranchised by force from her supporters who are now further disenfranchising her.

Fuckin' pitiful excuses for activist solidarity. Why don't you work on getting some more info to go on before YOU become part of the problem too?

You can't gag a gag order....or can you..

"work on getting some more info" The point is that only Leah can provide the information and she refuses to do so. How can you possibly still not understand that?

So maybe after saying she had to talk, the state now says she can't talk. But we're supposed to believe that she refused to do the former and is now doing the latter. Right.

This is coming from the Committee to support her. Don't you think they did some homework before releasing this?

Apparently not, as they are not even withdrawing support, just "suspending" it. After saying very specifically that everyone would be treated as non-cooperators until strong evidence to the contrary was in place. Which has not been released. Except through an anonymous Anews post with sketchy details and hearsay. If you are going to withdraw support, then lay out what the fuck is known and how it is know in an accountable way. If not, fucking stick together despite the fear and confusion.

And to all your manarchists that still don't get it about misogyny fuck you very much.

LOL. It isn't about "not getting it," it is about someone blaming other people and deflecting their guilt onto others by focusing on the misogyny of internet comments. The fact of the matter is, if she didn't mess up, that initial statement would have looked a whole lot different.

Either way, this convo is getting a bit ridic, we need more information.

Someone comes out of prison after speaking to a grand jury, refuses to say anything about it, support them forever. That's your plan? Fucking brilliant!

Since your new here here's the deal, snitches aren't going to come and tell everyone what they did, prosecutors aren't going to tell us and the jury members aren't either so your plan fails.

Leah owed everyone a statement immediately and still does, and until she releases one fuck her!

Thanks Business Cat!! We now understand!

Hipster cat knew Business cat when we was still on the street.

Oh for fucks sake...memes?

...liberals. what next? Leah-nesia

Liberals? Is this an attempt at irony that you not only post an article regarding the privilege of internet culture on a forum online, but that the critique of memes is almost exclusively used regarding their effectiveness in electoral politics? If so, this is one of the most brilliant posts on this thread. But if not, any of the statements in the article could just as easily apply to @news and online forums in general:

"As I sit in the library, reading about the empowerment of the masses [on], a line starts to form at the front desk. This is the line to use a library computer, the only source of internet access for a significant part of the Saint Louis population."

"[] rely on constant awareness and participation. Internet access is the bare minimum required to understand [] - one must also possess a level of technological and political literacy that many people do not have the time or resources to cultivate. Moreover, they may lack the desire. In an election year, [] can be self-defeating - less an assertion of political power than an avowal of the pointlessness of politics."

"The crowd that [uses] differs from the crowd lining up to use the public library computers. They are wealthier, better educated, more technologically adept. But they too contend with political and economic powerlessness."

I personally found the above memes, gems in a very tiresome thread. I think your article proves the very point you are trying to disprove: "Memes do not distract so much from a serious conversation about the issues so much as affirm that a serious conversation about the issues is something we have long stopped having."

The article also details the effectiveness of memes when dealing with a selective audience (such as the one found here).

"As facts lost currency [such as people's denial of the seriousness of Leah's cooperation with the grand jury and lack of response], satire became the most effective form of political critique, because it was one of the only ways to acknowledge a broken system while still participating in it."

Leah-nesia. You mean like how she forgot her principled and hardline stance to not cooperate?

is there any reason NOT to give her the benefit of the doubt? Presumably if she did snitch on anyone we will find out

How fucking stupid are you? THE PROCEEDINGS ARE SECRET. YOU WON'T FIND OUT. THAT IS A PART OF THE REASON WHY NO COOPERATION MEANS NO COOPERATION AT ALL. Read the thread before you posted your dumb opinion!

I'm not an expert on grand juries but I did read it. Someone linked to an earlier CAPR statement that said:

"In the event that someone does co-operate it will become evident in the resulting grand jury transcripts, records of those indicted (if there are indictments), and in the upcoming FOIA requests that we are committed to obtaining and publishing."

Is that not true?

it can take years to get a foia request back, and even when you do it would likely be redacted beyond use to us.

what's the deal with grand jury transcripts? I assume they are redacted as well?

I think that's an error. I don't believe grand jury transcripts exists. No one is allowed to take notes during a grand jury.

Actually they do take a transcript, which they can and will use against you and others later on, but you are not allowed to make it public and in most cases it is not even provided to the witness.

Don't expect a grand jury transcript.

It's likely that beyond hearing it directly from Leah-Lynn, the only way we'll know even a portion of what was said in the grand jury room is during the trial (or through the discovery process) if anyone is ever indicted. Even then, incriminating statements made against those indicted could still be concealed, referenced only as coming from an "unnamed witness." There's a very remote possibility that Leah-Lynn could testify at trial (if there is one) against whoever is indicted, then we would know for sure. But that possibility is remote indeed.

There is one way for Leah-Lynn to end the speculation and that is to come clean about what happened. If there is a gag order, and breaking it would land Leah-Lynn back in jail, there would at least be community support throughout the process. Alternatively, the decisions that Leah-Lynn has made will continue to cause disruption and confusion until they're clarified.

I believe that is saying once people are indicted. Because if they are indicted on evidence from the GJ that will have to be presented to the defence.

oh but in that case they could potentially reveal information which is useful to the authorities but which would not necessarily come up because of the indictment. meaning there is no way to know everything they have said for sure, correct?

That is not true. Grand jury transcripts are never released, and the judiciary is not subject to FOIA requests. The only way information comes out about a grand jury is through indictments.

What will we find out? What we do know is that a new person has been served right after she cooperated.

the point of discussing this is not to apportion blame in some kind of morals court,but merely to establish whether this woman is safe to work with,giving her the "benefit of the doubt" places those who are part of her circle in danger of losing their freedom. This is a practical question first...and waiting until the cops show up to act as if someone may have snitched under the present circumstances does not appear to be very sensible.

That is definitely the right approach, but I think we should be careful not to abandon comrades based on limited information.

It sounds like she gave some information and although it may not have been important or useful to the state it was not in line with what she said she would do. This definitely makes it risky to work with her, but it does not necessarily make it risky to continue offering her any form of support while she is facing state persecution.

Is she facing state persecution?

Is _anyone_ that's before a grand jury "safe to work with" if you are working on things where your safety depends on law enforcement not knowing about them? Anyone before a grand jury is someone they are watching, aren't they already not safe to work with? (through no fault of their own, it's got nothing to do with blame, as you say.)

Aren't the current resisters going to be "not safe to work with", even after they wait out the juries and eventually get released without talking, for quite some time?

Why exactly is it important to "establish whether [someone] is safe to work with" (what the hell is with the crazy "this woman" formulation? But anyhow), when that someone clearly has no plans to work with anyone any time soon? Does this really need establishing in this case? For what purpose? If that's the point, there's not much to talk about, of course she is not someone you should be involving in clandestine activities -- and it's quite clear she has no plans to involve herself in such anyway (probably because she's realized she's fucking scared of prison, a not unreasonable reaction to prison).

People are getting caught up in their war movie fantasies and disconnected from what's actually going on. Recall, she's not actually accused by the state of participating in any illegal activities, generally people who they think participated in illegal activities are _not_ called before grand juries -- the kind of informant activity that results there is when the police promise they won't prosecute YOU if you turn on your fellow conspirators, but they make you believe that if you don't cooperate with them they'll throw you in jail. THAT'S snitching, true. That's not even what happened here, grand juries have nothing to do with that sort of scenario, that is NOT what is happening here.

most of what the grand jury seems to have been questioning people about was who-knows-who. not who had committed specific crimes, but what networks of anarchists exist. they are asking people to confirm the existence of CONSPIRACIES. that's what's at stake here. it's unlikely that anyone will ever know what was gleaned from the grand jury proceedings (with or without leah's cooperation), because a lot of it is simply associations of people, and it's associations of people who would be facing serious fucking charges. not just some broken windows, but federal conspiracy charges and 'interstate travel with intent to riot' -- the kind of crazy cases that are typically built around summits.

to inform - under any circumstance, accomplice to a crime or not - on one's friends is snitching. end of story.

I'm no expert on grand juries but I'm _pretty_ sure that once you answer even one question (besides your name and DOB) at one of these hearings, you have to answer all of them. So this talk about Leah cooperating during her first subpoena appearance but then refusing to answer only some of the questions would have also ended with her being put on trial for contempt of court. It wouldn't really make sense to only answer "insignificant" questions but not other ones if she knew she'd go to prison for it anyway.

I'm just saying, let's lay off the speculation for now.

You're right, you're no expert. You have to give your name and address (which obviously you can refuse, but why?) and then after that you can invoke your 5th amendment right not to incriminate yourself. If you are granted use immunity, as in they will not use your testimony against YOU, then you no longer have a 5th amendment right. You can choose to continue to invoke it or remain silent, but you will still be sent to prison for the remainder of the grand jury, or until you can get out through legal means.

Ways to get out include filing a habeas corpus motion (will be denied almost assuredly, if immunity is granted), you can wait until it's clear you won't talk and the imprisonment is shown as punitive rather than coercive and file an appeal on that grounds, or you can speak to the grand jury. If you speak to the grand jury, they may prevent you from taking notes, and the judge can issue a gag order preventing you from talking about what happened in court, even if it would show that your cooperation was really non-cooperation and exonerate your name in anarchist circles.

If the judge issues a gag order and you speak to a living soul besides your lawyer about what happened in the courtroom, you can be put back in prison. If you obey the gag order and say nothing about what happened, you may be expected to by your political circles and ostracized or demonized for not explaining. That certainly seems like a good reason to leave town, to avoid the temptation to talk and the backlash for not talking.

Unfortunately, we can't know what she said until she tells us or the grand jury is over. It's probably best not to speculate on what it was or why she did it.

The clear enemy in this case is the state, and we should focus on that.

*exonerate your name should either be exonerate you or clear your name, I was typing too fast and thinking too slow I guess

Yes but if you are under a gag order can you state "i am under a gag order" or not?

What if the government planted a secret micro chip that is causing Leah's dodgy selfish behavior? You can't PROVE that the government DIDN'T plant a micro chip in her head, so therefore we should continue to defend Leah. They also just started putting fluoride in Portland's drinking water (which is also used as government mind control), we can't prove that fluorides' not to blame for her behavior, so we should assume it is. If in doubt, it's probably a secret government conspiracy.

ah, good point comrade

Get out of here, John Birch Society/Alex Jones !

Look people, get a grip.

Here are the facts: she went in front of a GJ and got released. She did not immediately release a statement saying something like: "although I went in front of the GJ on DATE, I still refused to say anything at all, and was released afterward." This would be weird given her intention to document every act of noncooperation so far.

She can only conclude that, without such a statement detailing what happened at the GJ, people will assume she snitched. She has to know this.

There are only three conclusions, therefore: a) she snitched; or b)she doesn't care whether or not people think she snitched; c) she's too out of her mind to understand what's going one.

Both a) and b) are intolerable. C) seem unlikely, and I'm not prone to think it unless specifically told so by someone close to her.

I'm going to assume she snitched.

Is it just me or is everyone forgetting that nowhere in north america are anarchists hard enough (read: active enough) to justify half the hysterics I just read here. Losers.

Yeah being accountable to your community and not cooperating with grand juries is would only be important if anarchists "did more".

it would be *more* important, relatively in all these hysterics look pathetic *RELATIVE* to how sad and pathetic anarchist activity generally is on this continent *RELATIVE* to other places in the world where they don't breakfast on the weaksauce ... you snarky fuck. In fact, snarky e-comments are exactly what I plan to tell the grand jury all about when they haul me up there, SINCE THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO TALK ABOUT. ok, I'm done. :)

What community? You from Portland or do you only know her through the internet?

I think the CAPR response to these ambiguous circumstances is the best option.

Snitch-jacketing doesn't help us to know how to best move forward.

We have to keep building the "material solidarities that allow us to hold on."

We have to keep building momentum for those resisting.

We need to talk to each other about the grand jury and what it could mean for us.

We need to do our best to resolve grudges or at least suspend hostilities between ourselves and whatever pathetic cliques and milieus we have beef with (political or otherwise).

PNW friends should talk to their families about all of this.
They should consider introducing their friends and roommates to each others families, if that's an option.

People should rebuild ties to other social networks, if those have broken down.
Do your part to rekindle friendships.

Most of all, stay active. Keep pushing forward. Don't be so consumed with dread and cynicism. Everything I've ever read that motivated me to act has been in the spirit of joy, of livelihood, of rebellion and friendship.

It is likely that things will not go perfectly with this grand jury. It is likely that more people will go to jail in the next year. By acting now, we can create a favorable context for the next sequence of frame ups, raids, and incarceration.



So all the pigs have to do is pick up one extra person then release them early to tear us apart with paranoid snitch-jacketing? Or just release the most popular of the latest bunch they grabbed?

See the problem?

It's so fucking obvious that most of the people commenting here have never had any first-hand experience with charges that are serious or political. Most I've seen start dropping charges within weeks of initial round-ups, as well as coming upon other names later. Courts have an absurd and bizarre set of rules and procedures, and rarely make much sense viewed from the outside.

This case has used a strategy of total, principled, non-cooperation. That's an easy thing to talk about, but an incredibly difficult and taxing thing to attempt yourself. Leah and others didn't volunteer for this task, and if this is anything like other cases I've seen are now going through their own kind of personal/social/famillial hell. Requiring total noncooperation as a condition of support sets an incredibly high bar, and it's not something that 90+% of political prisoners could claim they attempted. Prison solidarity isn't about grandstanding and making statements, it's about making sure captured comrades have some kind of support.

I've seen people pushed to the brink of suicide and into serious substance dependency by far less serious cases. This shit tears your life apart. Why might Leah have gone AWOL? After reading many these comments, I'm not sure why she'd ever want to be associated with "anarchists" again.

Once again if Leah was being transparent about the circumstances surrounding her release, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's not Leah's incarceration and subsequent release that has caused so much mistrust, it's Leah's unwillingness to disclose even the most minimal information regarding her appearance in front of the GJ that has shaken peoples trust in her. This statement was written as a result of Leah's behavior, not as result of some kind of wild speculation (as some of the above comments are suggesting).

Interesting how you want to talk about how hard it was for Leah to be in prison when two other people are still in prison and another person will likely enter soon. And she cracked after 3 days. Here's another take: she's a weak weak person with little to no conviction in her supposed principles.

Make excuses all you want, but the fact of the matter is she made a much bigger deal about herself not cooperating than others and immediately folded and now has a bunch of money that was donated to her that she will likely not give up to those that need it who are still in jail because they're not as weak as her.

fuck off, not all of us are "men" with no emotions. we know that makes everyone a better soldier and whore; we know that's what is valued in this world--sociopaths, with undying conviction to protect those who would turn on us on a is in evidence here.

hey, if all of you 'man up' under dire circumstances, and phony solidarity - good for you! this entire thread, but for a few measured comments, makes me want to fucking PUKE.

what i am learning from this thread is that many anarchists are really frustrated liberal social workers; if 15 year old gang bangers have a more advanced analysis of how to deal with state repression then you as a self confessed radical,anarchist etc. ,then you are doing it wrong.

This is off topic, but has anyone noticed that tumblr has basically become the liberal identity politics version of 4chan. Folx on tumblr were originally condemning the grand jury resistors for "breaking the law" and for being "white" (nevermind the fact that neither of those things are true). Only now do they come to Leah's defense when it comes to light she may have cooperated. Disgusting...

Seriously I'm not making this shit up:

Wait, if tumblr's the liberal identity politics version of 4chan, then what's the point of Anews?

@news is to the lib ident politics of tumblr as /b/ is to 4chan and anokchan is like 2chan or something

very scientific, thanks.

well yeah clearly

tumblr, instagram, pinterest, and the curation, titling, and tagging of facebook photographs are all exemplary forms of gendered immaterial labor. of course their content is totally conservative!



a little tryhard with the 'liberal' comment, there

sorry to break the news to you, but i'd say two of the resistors are pretty damn white - not like that ever makes a difference in garnering support or anything!

Role Reversal Question:

I want to know how long the grand jurors would hold out if the shoe was on the other foot. Suppose Anonymous found the name of one of them, and published it on Wikileaks. Suppose that person was then questioned by individuals wanting the names of the rest of the grand jury, in the basement of a squat. Any estimates (in SECONDS) as to how long that grand juror would go before tattling on all his buddies?

Well while we're in action movie fantasy land masturbation land I'm just gonna answer bladdy gaddy bloo gloo glah blah pointless pointless pointless seconds.

Whether its name be Anonumous or Kontrrazvedka, there does seem to be some need for an anarchist intelligence service.

Hey, hold on there. One step at a time. There does seem to be some need for anarchist intelligence, full stop.

I give this cop 5/10.

I'm really trying to withhold judgement on this until we hear from Leah herself, but every day that passes without some sort of reassurance that she didn't decide to answer grand jury questions to get out of jail further undermines this whole resistance strategy. If the claims of cooperation made in the original anonymous statement are true then sorry but that means she betrayed her fellow resisters and should no longer expect our support.

I would be much more understanding of the trauma/needing space explanation if she hadn't gone to such lengths to turn herself into the public face of PNW grand jury resistance in the days leading up to her incarceration. I don't know what she's going through but at some point we have to expect accountability from one another or this whole solidarity thing breaks down. We have a responsibility to support her as long as she keeps quiet, but in turn she as a responsibility to keep us informed so we can stay ahead of the State's attempt to divide us.

I really hope there are some sort of extenuating circumstances (like a gag order) that explain what's going on here, but again, every day that passes without clarification is bad for the movement, and Matt, Kteeo and Maddy especially.

I'm not quite so sure about her "responsibilities" to a bunch of "supporters" and scenesters. She owes @news commenters nothing.

The movement doesn't exist. Stop pretending that Leah has anything to do with you besides being a person you read about on the internet.

If ONE person not strong enough to resist their torture undermines your whole strategy, you need a new strategy.

Fortunately, it doesn't, however.

And if she DID talk to the grand jury, as it looks like she probably did, then Of COURSE there's a gag order on her. Of course, if someone was willing to go prison no matter what, then they could, you know, VIOLATE the gag order, and go to prison.

One person folded to their intimidation and torture (imprisonment and especially solitary confinement are torture, yeah). Yep, it happened. Move on. If your strategy assumes that nobody will ever do this and everybody will be a superhero with 100% non-cooperation, your strategy is bunk.

But in fact that's not what it requires. Every person who resists them as much as they can is one more barricade to their plans. Some barricades will be overturned. Every person educated as to the importance of resisting the grand jury makes it more likely that more people will try, and the more people that try, the more will succeed. Every person who is strong enough to resist their torture deserves our admiration. Those who are not strong enough may be no less deserving of love and care, however.

If the only choices are 100% non-cooperation in the face of torture, OR being considered a snitch and an enemy -- then as they step things up and more and more of us become subject to their pressure and torture, we're going to find that most of us are snitches and enemies. But that's not how it works, life is not an action movie.

Again, you assume the only choices are 100% non-cooperation or being a snitch, when this is not the argument being made for withdrawing support. There are ways people have gone in front of grand juries without being a snitch, but all of these ways required that the person come forward with the details of the proceedings immediately upon their release. Not only does this detail what was said, but it also gives the heads up to anyone whose names were mentioned in the proceedings. Leah has failed in this regard. And now another activist has been subpoenaed. Now is the time for her to come forward if there ever was one.

Sooo we are just supposed to trust someone based on how well they tell their story as to what happened in the grand jury? The proceedings are secret and the only word you have is the person who testified. Therefore the only strategy one can take is non-cooperation.

I personally believe that non-cooperation is the best option when dealing with a grand jury. After having dealt with a grand jury personally (and refusing to testify) and having read up a lot on grand jury cases, there are several activists who, when subpoenaed to a grand jury, went in and out of the room after each question to consult with a lawyer. This worked as a stalling tactic, and this also provided the lawyer (and support team) with the questions as they were being asked, and the answers as the lawyer and subpoenee came up with them. While this does require a certain level of trust, it is also a much more transparent process IF someone is going to go before a grand jury.

That being said, Leah made the decision to refuse to testify and to record all acts of non-cooperation as they happen. After being imprisoned for contempt of court for her refusal, she compromised Matt and Kteeo's situation by going before the grand jury. Her actions can be used as an example to extend their incarceration. She further compromised her own position by not recording or making any statements about her non-cooperation, nor has she provided any details regarding what went down in front of the grand jury.

While I think it is wise and prudent to withdraw support from Leah, this energy should be reinvested in supporting Matt and Kteeo, as well as Maddy, who has recently been subpoenaed.

Katherine Olejnik #42592-086
FDC SeaTac,
P.O. Box 13900
Seattle, WA 98198

Matthew Kyle Duran #42565-086
FDC SeaTac
P.O. Box 13900
Seattle, WA 98198

This is why in gurrilla wars information-and especially names and upcoming plans-is always compartmented. It does the Enemy little good to know that yes, the courthouse was smashed, and yes, the person they are interrogating was there, but they don't know anything about the upcoming actions or who planned the smashing of the Mayor's home. One cell goes out, the rest stay lit, just like parallel-wired Christmas tree bulbs.

In movements like Occupy and in public protests few participants have operated in environments where torturing one person to get information about all others is a routine practice, therefore have not used this sort of information security.

It's only dangerous to continue associating with/supporting Leah for those who know her personally. They are the only ones running any risk based on her questionable dedication to resistance. As for the rest of us, offering solidarity symbolically and from afar, there is nothing at stake for us to give her the benefit of the doubt until she releases a statement. On the contrary, to so quickly digress into snitch-jacketing, this is 1)a pathetic show of solidarity, 2)exactly what the GJ hoped would happen!

Be patient, yall. Stay strong

up this comment!

the problem is obviously that it is most important for the GA to undermine solidarity among people who actually know each other

I mean GJ that was a freudian slip

whoa, scary slip at that O_O

the realest slip ever

Once again-


I've looked all over but can't find the answer. Anecdotal evidence makes it appear that you can let it be known that you are being restrained by a gag order.

I'd like someone to clarify when gag orders are actually used.
I'm sure they're used after people divulge information, but can they be placed upon someone who hasn't cooperated and/or spoke to a GJ?

Has there EVER been a past case where someone was placed under a gag order for.... NOT talking???

I don't know but I would say that in this situation that would be a pretty clever strategy on their part. Not that I think that's what happened.

But what I'm wondering is: Is it even legally possible to place a gag order on someone who doesn't talk? Where's Lauren Regan and/or Stu Sugarman when you need them?

it depends on the gag order. wikipedia:
A national security letter, an administrative subpoena used by the FBI, has an attached gag order which restricts the recipient from ever saying anything about being served with one.[8] The government has issued hundreds of thousands of such NSLs accompanied with gag orders. The gag orders have been upheld in court.[9]

I don't think that's what happened with Leah even though I am personally inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt

Once again-


What is she, special or some shit?

Wahhh wahhhh resisting the grand jury is too hard. Well it isn't too hard for Matt and Kateeo. It's just hard for a weak ass like Leah

I don't understand why people are assuming they know whether she cooperated or not. She could be legally not allowed to talk to people; there could be cops commenting on this thread saying she talked.

Just don't make assumptions.

Here are your role choices in the anarchist "community," ladies:

Manson Girl
Mafia Wife

Witch. Every fucking time.

"to be quite frank, they're not even that good of skateboarders" LOLly lol

If you don't have a rat
You can't be one of us

funny, i really did used to have a pet rat. like, in real life

sounds about right

yeah, it was pretty much standard among hot 14 year old punk girls. i dyed mine pink with color foam.

later dickweeds!!

Typical manarchist. Read Joan of Arc!

you forgot valerie solanis

you forgot your buckle shoes, and your eyeballs and brain.

Did Leah write the MARS manifesto or am I getting confused?

First off, stop giving into snitchjacketing. There is no reason to assume she snitched, and there is no reason to assume it is healthy for the movement to base our beliefs off of speculation with no solid evidence. There are many laws in place, especially surrounding Grand Jurys, and a lot of it exists to confuse the average person who hasn't studied law for years. The state has a long history of using psyops and playing mental games to create rifts and divisions in dissident movements. She could have been issued a gag-order ( and released in order to create paranoia/divisions. The feds could have issued a subpoena to the next Anarchist on their list of surveillance at this time to enhance such suspicions. There are many possibilities, is what I'm getting at.

With that being said, her cooperation is still a major possibility which means it is in the best interests for those who are involved with her personally to assume their safety may be at risk when around her. She knows this, and it probably plays a major reason in why she disappeared. The state does not need to imprison every member of the radical/anarchist community to tear them apart, and fill their lives with misery and stress. We are up against the same government that has covertly overthrown entire governments here. We cant expect to not face such sinister mental forms of war.

The best 3 things to do is;

1. Forget about her, honestly, unless she becomes directly involved with us again, because this may potentially be risky to the freedom of comrades.
2. Focus on those facing repression/behind bars now, offer them support/solidarity
3. Realize who our true enemy is, the state.

Okay, let's say she couldn't take it in prison, and agreed to talk to the grand jury, attempting to say as little as possible of use. Which seems rather plausible.

Yes, it would then be appropriate for the committee to withdraw whatever forms of support they were giving her (which she presumably doesn't need anyway). I'm not sure what the point of announcing it is, but maybe there's a point I am just not sure of, and okay, the committee supports those who stay silent not those who don't, that is appropriate and correct.

It would not make her a terrible person or a snitch. It would make her not perfect, not as strong as she would have liked to be, not as strong as we'd all like all of us to be, not a superhero. Maybe it would even mean she fucked up and made a mistake.

Yes, it would mean anyone making covert plans probably ought not to include her in them -- but just getting _called before the grand jury_ is enough to mean that already, because it means they're watching you, why would you include someone they're watching in your covert plans?

If there's only enough room in "us" for people who are superheroes, then there's not much room for any of us. Those who think they are superheroes are in fact the ones you shouldn't be trusting, because none of us are, and those who _think_ they are, are full of ego and machismo and just don't know their own weaknesses. Which is in fact awfully dangerous.

The reason she's not releasing a statement is presumably because of all the anarcho-machismists who will label her a snitch and threaten her with bodily harm for telling the truth -- which among other things, is just plain self-defeating, when you alienate and demonize those who are not as strong as your superhero myth, you just drive them into the hands of your enemies, who will claim to understand and want to protect them.

Those who agree to be under-cover informants participating in movements and reporting back? Those who are agent provacateurs entrapping others into illegal activity while reporting to their masters? Brandon Darby? Snitches, no quarter. Someone who was not strong enough to withstand solitary confinement (a form of torture), and to get out of it folded and agreed to talk to a grand jury to say as little as possible, quite likely not actually knowing of anything incriminating in the first place? You think that's the same thing, you're a lunatic, and dangerous to yourself and others.

Yes, it's true, it's _better_ not to talk to a grand jury at all, even things you think are harmless may not be, the right and best thing to do is stay silent. But not being strong enough to do so is not the same thing as betrayal, and is nowhere in the same fucking league as ACTUAL snitches like Brandon Darby or Sabu. To think it is is just idiotic, militaristic, macho, self-delusion, and it's dangerous too. Yes, save the financial and organizational support for those who were stronger. Yes, don't organize clandestine activity with her (or _anyone_ who's before a grand jury). But if you are her friend, she probably needs friends a lot right now (and they'll help her stay strong and away from further compromise), and if you weren't her friend, then just let it go and move on to supporting those who still need support.

Thanks for this comment. I've been up on scary charges with a bunch of co-accused, and I can tell you, the speculation about who may or may not snitch leaves people who are already in a difficult situation trapped between the violence of the state and the knee-jerk hostility of people who should be their friends.

We need a more balanced reaction. Folks facing repression often publicize it as a form of self-protection, but this also means that rumours travel fast, and 'movement' support can rapidly turn into movement scorn if the situation becomes ambiguous. This means it's not actually support that can be relied upon.

See for instance the ongoing hostility towards the collective over the friendship of some of their members with Darren Thurston. Not that i think we should all go organize with Darren, but should he be getting jumped on the street? Should his friends be getting driven out of social spaces and having their projects boycotted?

Is this kind of scene violence what Leah has to look forward to if her telling of her experience leaves doubt in the minds of some critical mass of faceless online readers? The stress and alienation that come any time people close to us are facing serious charges is bad enough, we don't need the gossip-train pile-on.

"See for instance the ongoing hostility towards the collective over the friendship of some of their members with Darren Thurston. Not that i think we should all go organize with Darren, but should he be getting jumped on the street? Should his friends be getting driven out of social spaces and having their projects boycotted?"

I wouldn't be opposed to someone jumping Darren Thurston (or any snitch for that matter) and yes I don't think snitches and their enablers should not be welcome in radical spaces. And I don't mean that as some sort of macho posturing, but as one tactic (of many) that can be used to practically and effectively confront snitching.


I should also note that I'm not saying Leah in a snitch.

"I don't think snitches and their enablers should not be welcome in radical spaces."

That's just what I mean. You are calling Darren a snitch, the same word reserved for Brandon Darby or undercover cops, when what he did was try to provide as little information as he could that he believed to be harmless and that the state already had. Not that I support his choice to do that, but it's misleading to use the same word for that as for Darby.

Mostly, people are hostile towards Darren because of the ambiguity around exactly what he said or what his deal entailed. Even though he has offered several public explanations of the deal and his own rationale, people don't believe him and think his co-operation with the state might be ongoing.

My point is that public support turns to public scorn when the situation gets ambiguous, and making a clear statement isn't going to resolve the ambiguity if people aren't prepared to trust. Therefore it makes sense to me that Leah would hesitate to try to explain why she's not in jail, since it wouldn't clear away people's doubt and would expose her to more hostility.

I think we really need a more nuanced analysis of these kinds of situation. There's more to it than snitch vs not-snitch and support vs scorn. Definitely it's the best and most admirable for folks to say nothing, even if they suffer for it. But the reality is that a lot of people just aren't able to do that and follow other courses of action while still trying not to harm or incriminate their friends.

When facing these kinds of threats from the state, the knowledge that your supporters are ready to turn on you if you are perceived as having slipped makes it a lot harder to stay solid.

I don't think anyone is equating Leah with a snitch, at least not without evidence. What I think people are concerned about, is that she went in front of a grand jury and isn't coming forth with the details regarding the questions she was asked and the answers that she gave. If a week in jail was so traumatizing that she snapped and went before the grand jury "attempting to say as little as possible", she should've come forth with that immediately by saying that she snapped, went before a grand jury, here are the things they asked me, and here are the "little as possible" things that I said. But, two weeks and one other subpoena later, she has yet to do those things. If all she said was "I don't know" it takes much less to say that than to release a statement about sexual harassment on the internet. If she said more than that to the grand jury, she owes it not only to her immediate community who is going to be facing more subpoenas, but also to the larger community that has supported her emotionally and financially, to come forward with the details. If she doesn't, she should expect no support and no sympathy from the larger community.

This is the best thread in the whole discussion.

Best and most concise statement yet. If anyone can respond to this with even half the argument, I would be likely to give Leah the benefit of the doubt.

It's quite possible they'd put someone back in prison again for revealing what went on before the grand jury (gag order). If you talked to a grand jury to stay out of prison, and then you wind up in prison anyway, wow, talk about the worst of both worlds.

I am not saying it's "okay" to talk to a grand jury, or it's "okay" to "break". I'm saying there aren't only two choices, 100% strong non-cooperation or snitch. Life ain't an action movie. If you talk to most anyone who's served real time as a political prisoner, they'll agree, I'd bet.

People are damaged. People fuck up. People break. People are not superheroes. Is this "okay"? No, we're worlds away from "okay" here, none of it is fucking okay.

"They're already going to call you a snitch for the little you've already told us, you've already betrayed your friends, they won't protect you or care for you. You might as well just tell us everything now. We're the only ones who care about you now, we're the only ones who can help you, if you help us." This is what they fucking DO, for real, think about what it means.

i'm just going to quote josh harper, one of the shac7 who served many years in prison because of grand jury cooperators:

"It is important to note that all the CAPR statement said was that they were suspending support for Leah until it became clear what questions she had answered and how she secured her release.
While Leah may have mental health problems, the health of our community is also important, and like it or not her testifying after taking such a public stand does hurt others in our circles. It harms the credibility of others who say that they will never testify- those who need a judge to believe that coercive imprisonment will not work.
No one is calling for Leah to be harmed or harassed or even contacted, people are simply asking that the focus goes to the folks who are refusing to testify and not assisting the state with their investigation.
That said, people need to stop with the border-line snitch apologism here. Protocol for talking with police, FBI, and grand juries is in place for good reason- protecting the members of our community from harassment and allowing us space to resist the state.
I have served time, been subpoenaed to grand juries, had my home raided by a JTTF, been arrested by the Dept. of Homeland Security, and found out that some of my friends were paid FBI informants. The people who put me on the federal radar, who helped get the indictment against me, etc, were people who testified to grand juries. Leah’s decision effects a wider community, and I don’t think it is inappropriate to criticize that decision and ask that the community stop what amounts to the largest display of support since Jonathan Paul’s first grand jury back in the 90s."

That's exactly the point though. Leah went in saying she was ready to go to prison. People supported her because she refused to testify and was willing to go to prison. A week later she goes in front a grand jury. If she was willing to go to prison before, then she should be willing to -possibly- go to prison through breaking a gag order or sharing information through other means. If she isn't willing to go to prison, the grand jury can keep coercing her to testify to the point that she gives up as much information that they think she has. This is the precedent set by those not willing to go to prison. It is also people who are not willing to go to prison that end up as informants and cooperators against others. Given the state of repression over the past 4 years, prison is a liability that all anarchists must face.

And I'm not saying that a persons choice is 100% non-cooperation or snitching. There are a number of people that take plea deals without naming co-conspirators. There has also been a number of cases of people who have gone before grand juries without compromising their personal integrity nor compromising their communities. But all of these people assumed accountability with their community by being transparent about the proceedings. Leah has failed to do this to even the most minimal amount. This is irresponsible and totally unaccountable to both her immediate community and the community-at-large, whose support she requested.

And regardless of what she did or did not say, by refusing to testify and receive contempt of court charges and then cooperate with the grand jury, Leah provides an example that the imprisonment for contempt of court is not punitive but coercive. This has serious implications for Matt and Kteeo's length of imprisonment. Because Leah has already made this decision that could adversely effect Matt and Kteeo, she owes it to them, if nobody else, to come forward with the details of her involvement in the grand jury.

I think this is the best comment I've read on here so far. (A lot of these other comments are based on ignorance of how grand juries work.)

Also, I want to add that a big point of prisoner support is to help the person withstand the shittiness of prison, and by her own account she had an outpouring of support. I sent her a book the day she was imprisoned because I felt like her statement about remaining silent was really sincere and moving. I understand that everything looks fishy, but I'm reserving total judgement until we hear more (p.s. Say something, Leah). I really don't want to believe that someone who sounded so principled would turn so quickly.

There were no new subpoenas for months and then there is a new one immediately after she cooperates. Seems to me like it might have something to do with something she said.

But you have no idea what she said. so be fuckin patient..

We will never have anything except her word.

So some people will break, and that means it's OKAY? Try again. Your accusations of 'militarism' show nothing but a naive perception that assumes this isn't a serious struggle that requires some personal discipline. Those involved in struggle against capital have to be ready to stand strong in the face of repression. Weaknesses exist within us all, but we all have the power to overcome them together. Giving into the states attacks on all natural human weaknesses is more of a reinforcement of state-power than acknowledging the fact that we breaking-down in the face of repression is harmful to our communities. People not involved with Anarchists have gotten shot, and refused to even file a police report, yet you think it's acceptable to break down and put others at risk when facing under 5 years in prison? This is why Bakunin had it right, ORGANIZE THE LUMPEN CLASS!

The anarchist scene in the states needs to have a serious dude seriously about what constitutes snitching. Friends in other countries take the inevitability of information being given under torture into account. So did older generations here. Everyone has a breaking point, to deny this is not only stupid, its dangerous. Giving information under torture or threat of torture is always a possibility. These black and white delineations do not serve us. Let's not put ourselves at risk with false militarism.

Dude, I don't have anything against "lumpens", I might count as one myself by some standards, but seriously, are you denying that a) levels of substance addiction are way higher in those parts of the class or b) alkies and junkies have a tendency to be sketchy and possible to manipulate? I'm not saying don't organize "lumpens", work with whoever's closest to you, but suggesting people from certain backgrounds have some magic immunity against snitching is the dumbest shit ever.

CARP is SUSPENDING support at this time, not fully withdrawing it. Please stop acting like they're all the sudden completely against her.

On (now inaccessible) a statement was issued on October 19th (which can still be viewed at saying that, "She asks that people NOT jump to conclusions about her release. More information will be released but she needs space until then..." On the same day another statement was issued ( which says, "Again, to reiterate, more information is going to be released in a few days."

It has been over a week & her supporters have received absolutely no word on what might have happened.
If she does not want people to jump to conclusions then she needs to speak up now rather than later.

Most depressing thread, story, reflection of @ ever. All of it- going to throw computer off bridge now.

So she doesn't say shit except that she's afraid for her safety to full explain what happened at the grand jury (AKA doesn't want to get beat by anarchists) and then leaves portland and no one knows where she went.

If I didn't know better, I'd say this was rather suspicious.

Did it never occur to you that "safety" could also imply LEGAL safety, as in, the feds are not done with her?

fucking think.

so, nobody knows the details. but, it's pretty clear she "co-operated". i don't think speculation on that point is worthwhile because it's obvious. more worthwhile speculation is to where she's gone,, and not as a means to track her down but as a means to understand what just happened.

i have two suggestions.

1) she's in a witness protection program.
2) she was an undercover police officer.

"Housing, subsistence for basic living expenses and medical care are provided to the witnesses."

almost sounds like freedom?

Everyone does have a breaking-point, indeed, but discipline is what allows us to exceed such a point, even until death. History proves this. I'm not asking us to expect everyone to not snitch, but to imply we should support snitches because police successfully intimidated them is a fucking joke; This is how most snitches are formed - police intimidation (non-political also). If we accept it as OK, and fine for everyone to snitch as soon as their cell door closes, then we are setting ourselves up for failure. With such a lack of strength and conviction, everyone will be blabbing to a pig as soon as a mass-arrest happens at your average large mobilization. It sounds rude, and exclusive, but if you cant handle handcuffs without putting comrades at risk, then don't associate with people engaging in pushing for total revolt against the power structure and stay on the @news comments where your 'breaking point' will never have to be overcome.

You criticize us for "militarism" as if we have a say in the matter of the large repressive and VIOLENT force we struggle against. When doors are being kicked in by police with sub-machine guns, and military are being involved in federal spying operations on the home-front, the fact that you fail to acknowledge the necessity of discipline,strength, and a unified body that values such things in their struggle is the true danger. This isn't a fucking game. People will get jailed. People will get shot. People will even get tortured. Yet you think a breaking point is a legitimate excuse to turn against comrades? Then you've already lost.

Nope I think a breaking point is a part of all of us regardless of how you front. It should be considered, lines drawn with nuance and thoughtfulness. One can distance oneself from leah for safety without this vicious postering. It isn't a game, torture is real. Don't pretend all you have to do is organize with people who are theroetically hard enough. Ex political prisoners will tell you, everyone has a breaking point. Think about it.

Point is the lumpen cant have the appeal of reverting back to comfort, and escaping jail life because the daily life of the lumpen involves a high risk of incarceration. A lumpen can snitch to have his or her freedom, but that will mean being beat, and or completely isolated from other lumpens. Not to mention simply walking out of ones apartment as a lumpen can mean you're going to end up right back in prison. This is why gangs will take not snitching to the grave. When you have nothing left to lose the state cant break you. ORGANIZE THE LUMPEN CLASS NOW!

I'm grateful to bakunin for that analysis bout the lumpenproles, it helped me figure out where I fit in and which people I should focus my solidarity on. But the lumpens ain't so good at showing up on time or keeping radical spaces open, for that, we must apparently tolerate some liberal activist bullshit. I know, it sucks, but there it is. PROVE ME WRONG LUMPY?!?!?! Also, Bakunin reeeally hated jews, which I'm obligated to mention after any time spent praising him.

ur cute


Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.