Feed
March 30th, 2006
Press Conference For Hearing to Quash Grand Jury
Posted by
Insurgent in
My Videos, Uncategorized
click here to download
Update: The Judge “ordered the US Attorney to produce the subject of the investigation in camera by April 5, essentially asking the government to be more specific in the scope of the investigation.” –FBI Witch HuntNot much news at this point, But I’ll keep you all posted. Thanks for the traffic Boingboing
Following our hearing, the Judge stated that she understood the argument’s of my attorney as well as the Assistant US Attorney and we are currently awaiting her decision. For more information about this case, please visit joshwolf.net/grandjury/
It was good to see and hear what the lawyers were saying and see the support of the people there. Who was doing the filming?
So why not release the film? Someone got injured that was trying to do their job…
It’s nice to know that if I’m ever assaulted on the street that people like this will be there to not help.
Why not release the film?
1st: The injured police officer is a local matter, and not a federal crime; I was subpoenaed before a Federal Grand Jury. The reason that the federal government is involved stems from the SFPD’s assertion that there was an attempted arson on a police vehicle in the form of a small smokebomg or firework thrown in that vicinity.
2nd: There is something called the California Shield Law which protects journalists from having to reveal the footage that they don’t use in their reports under many circumstances. During my hearing the US Attorney basically asserted that any evidence the US Government wants it, it has a right to obtain.
If this interpretation of the law were to be implied, then the ramifications are quite profound both in regards to the 1st and 4th ammendments of the constitution but also the chilling effect this would have on the field of journalism.
That’s part of the reasoning why I’m not just handing over the tape to the Federal Grand Jury, there’s more but I gotta go to work right now…
Objectively I have to ask and in regards to Dan’s comment: what reason is there to not release the film?
the point is that it is not about the obtaining of the footage, as it is readily available at the moment.
it is about intimidating those who exercise free speech, it is about contolling the media, contolling what the public sees, contolling what the public learns about and therefore feeding the public with information that has been government approved.
there are those who believe that the state should not decide on the people’s behalf what should or should not be broadcast.
the state seeks to contol the broadcast of information as it will mean the state will be able to manipulate the people. and the victimisation of mr wolf is proof of an intellectual and ideological genocide,
good luck
I think you are being a jackass… If it was a protester that was injured I’m sure you’d plaster the whole thing up on the web in minutes. I think all you “independent journalist” protester-types need to grow up and realize that cops, feds, etc are (for the most part) trying to save your asses. Stop acting like spoiled children. Bring on the “fascist” comments and crap – the reality is you need to grow up.
So how about if the SFPD asked for the film? It doesn’t sound like you’d have a problem if they did that….even knowing that they would turn it over to the FBI. Does the SFPD just not feel like dealing with this, preferring to throw everything into daddy’s lap?
KWillits,
People were there to quickly help the injured police officer, including people attending the demonstration. Furthermore, there is a strong argument that the person who struck the officer was attempting to help his fellow protester who was being assaulted by the officer himself. According to the police files, Officer Shields was struck while striking the protester he was trying to detain with his baton.
Why wouldn’t you want to release the footage!? I agree with everyone else – you’re an idiot. “Independant” journalist my ass. I hope you get thrown in jail for slowing down the investigation.
This video is the most retarded thing i’ve ever seen. God damn hippies, pathetic really.
That little scuffle was not police brutality, The only reason anyone actually cares is the pig, uhm i mean cop felt disrepected when that kid booted him, and wants evidence to bring a charge. Now the press has picked up on it, but still no one important cares.
and Anarchism? are you retarded? 30 seconds with out our government and the Koreans or someone will be here to “liberate” us from ourselves. With smug brats running around the streets in SF acting like a bunch of pussies, I hope they start at the west coast.
Aside from the fact that you should WANT to assist a person who puts their life on the line for YOU daily, your “case” really amounts to nothing more than a tantrum and an opportunity to get 15 minutes of fame for you and your cause.
- You aren’t associated with a news organization (except in your own estimation, I suppose) as required under the Shield law.
- If the injured officer presses forward with a lawsuit, withholding your footage denies the officer a right to a fair trial as the evidence is crucial, thereby negating the Shield law.
As for the “chilling” effects of the authorities wanting footage (that you’re STILL free to publish, by the way) that could help in an investigation of somebody who was INJURED, I can only hope that if any of my loved ones were victims of a violent crime that was caught on tape, the cameraman would be “chillingly” requested to do the right thing.
Just my two cents. Enjoy your 15 minutes.
I’m sorry, but hitting isn’t helping. There are many things that a person can do in that situation to calm people down and de-escalate a chaotic situation, and I say that from personal experience. Hitting police over the head isn’t one of them.
I read the part about the 1st and 4th amendments, I noticed how no-one has commented on those Rights. I am a Canadian – so I am not really well schooled with the US Constitution. Anyway – if it is a point of violation of civil rights, I guess I support the withholding of the tape. There is a system in the US, maybe the rules should be followed.
Sorry – but someone has to take a stand, you don’t want to be referred to as a precident in jurisprudence.
Californian, the Shield law covers people who are working as news-gatherers and includes independent journalists and stringers. I have several times in the past sold footage as a stringer including some footage from the July 8th incident to KRON-TV.
For the record, I did not see, nor do I have footage of the officer being injured. The officer seen in my video was his partner.
My refusal to offer assistance to the federal grand jury is not an attempt to obstruct justice, but an opposition to the grand jury system which unlike our normal legal system has no safeguards in place to protect the rights of witnesses. Unlike in a trial, or standard hearing, I am not allowed legal counsel and the grand jury session itself is considered secret under most circumstances.
It is that, which I’m opposed to.
Honestly, I’m only thinking two things:
1. No one should be afraid of the truth, and
2. You must be about 25 years old…young enough to think that withholding evidence might actually make a dent in the grand jury system.
Best of luck.
All these “why don’t you just grow up” posts read too much like “why don’t you just you do what you’re told and fall in line with what your government expects of you”
Well, I suppose the Shield law applies to me, too, under your interpretation. If I walk down the street with my eyes/ears open, I’m indirectly “gathering news” and could potentially forward my “reports” onto a news organization. Good to know.
As for the partner being on the video vs. the officer, let me clarify my earlier thought then; If a loved one was a victim of a violent crime and there was a camera NEARBY that COULD potentially offer help, I’d hope the “journalist” would provide the footage.
You appear to be an intelligent (albeit misguided in some people’s estimation) man, so let’s at least be honest. Your refusal to offer assistance IS an attempt to obstruct justice for the benefit of your cause.
It’s my understanding that there is a rather large safeguard in place for GJ witnesses – the 5th amendment.
As for the 1st and 4th, you still retain the freedom to broadcast the video AND the seizure of a video of a PUBLIC demonstration where a (potential) crime took place is hardly unreasonable.
As I said before, enjoy your 15 min’s.
Granted, that there is nothing about the officer on the tape, it is not a question of trying to prosecute whoever hurt the officer, but of intimidating people who take part in protests. I remember the early 60’s and the hearings with the House on UnAmerican Activities Committee. There was an eerie similarity to what is happening now with regards to overuling first and fourth amendment rights. putting people in jail for contempt if they didn’t cooperate with the witchhunt going on and ruining many people’s lives because they were “blacklisted”. In this day and age, the distinction between a journalist who works for ABC full time and someone who videotapes and occassionally sells to the media, as well as independent posting on a personal vlog, becomes blurred and when the LA Times reports that IndyMedia is one of the organizations that the FBI is targeting, I think it is time to remember that the Bill of Rights was written to protect American citizens from the kind of encroachments that King George was fond of committing during the Revolutionary War. We were at war then too, you know, and still the founding fathers thought we needed to include the Bill of Rights in our Constitution.
To all the fascist morons who are demanding that this Independant Journalist turn over the tape: If you want to live in a totalitarian regime with no respect for a free press THEN MOVE TO COMMIE CHINA. If not then respect the 1st and 4th ammendments. As an Independant Journalist who went to J-School at IU I fully support the rights of the media, EVEN IF they are not owned by corporate sleeze.
BTW, if you think this is out of line, why not ask the police why they never release their fucking video of protests voluntarily… they are NOT protected by the constitution. Also, about half of all cops are complete assholes on powertrips; I have personally known and been friends of many, a lot join up just for the ego-stroke it gives them to shove around ‘civilians’. Thats why they like to beat people who are harmless/in handcuffs/excercising their right to peacably assemble.
This case has the same repercussions as those of the suponea to Google a few weeks ago: a precedent case can be used as an argument for allowing more infringement into rights, just like how limestone is chipped and dissolved through acid rain.
Based on what superficial information I’ve read, I fully support what you are doing. The state needs to be beaten back, pun intended.
To address issues that have relatively valid arguments, if a protester was seriously injured and not the cop, the state wouldn’t have any reasoning to support him and thus prosecute the pig. The state’s goal is to perpetuate the status quo. Of course we’d “plaster the whole thing up on the web in minutes.”
Also, to introduce anarchistic philosophy briefly is impossible. Debasing something you don’t know anything about is illogical and pointless, but you’ve been taught well by the government. Anarchy is a working class struggle, and there are anarchists in every single nation/state.
California, thanks for following up on my last response.
If you maintain a blog and one of the purposes of your blog is for the purposes of distributing first hand news, then yes — it is my understanding (an admittedly liberal interpration) of the California shield law, that yes, you would fall under its protections. While I do realize that it creates a bit of a quandry when you start granting any citizen the same rights afforded to the corporate media, but there really is no rational reason why one shouldn’t.
In regards to what I did and did not shoot, I never had the opportunity to make a decision to shoot or not shoot the incident involving the police officer that was struck; that event occured simultaneously to what I was filming, and I only learned about it after hearing, “officer down.” by which point, I was pretty much being directed by the SFPD where I could and could not be.
To that end, and without getting into a moral judgement call as to whether I should, I have no footage which can provide evidence as to the identity of the assailant. I’ve read through the police report which is accessible through this link, and they do not have any substantize description of the suspect. Therefore, my video couldn’t possibly assist in finding whoever he or she might be.
Yes, let us be honest, I do not feel that I’m obstructing justice in any shape or form. Our governmental system has set up an appeal process for a reason and working that system is not obstruction; it is an exercise in ensuring that these checks and balances do not continue to be eroded by an overzealous federal government.
It was 6 months after the July 8th incident that I received the subpoena. At this point in time, my appeals are not liable to effect the outcome for whoever was involved in the altercation with the officer. Perhaps I am obstructing the justice system by helping more people become aware of the Grand Jury system which is largely conducted in secrecy, but I feel no guilt about that.
While it is true that the 5th Ammendment can be used to protect one’s self during a grand jury preceeding, it is also true that the grand jury can grant immunity to the witness (there are actually two types of immunity which differ drastically), at which point the 5th ammendment is deemd moot, and failure to cooperate at that point is considered contempt.
If the intent of the authorities involved is to seek out the person who struck the police officer, a federal grand jury is a particularly strong-armed quixotic approach. If the intent is part of a second-wave McCarthy approach aimed at Anarchists and other voices of dissent then it would make sense that the government would choose to hide behind the secretive grand jury that strips uninformed people of their right to legal counsel.
Obviously this is conjecture, but I’m not the only one out there who’s concerned about an ongoing attack of our civil liberties; I think the big-budget production of V for Vendetta illustrates that these thoiughts lie in many of our heads; lying dormant, waiting for some sort of confirmation that another world is possible.
It’s a tired cliche, but every once in a while you see it, and just a glimpse of Possible is enough to keep me doing what I’m doing…
Thank you for the kind words in regards to my intelligence, and perhaps the energy that I choose to expend in this fight is futile, and perhaps the actions of my comrades are not always the best choices, but I do feel our common goals are worth working towards.
Thebes, for a ‘trained’ journalist your spelling and grammar is appalling.
I’m picking up a subtext from the discussion, that your resistance is as much visceral as rational. The US government since 9/11 has been reported to be engaging in actions that severely breach not only the law, but our American sense of governmental limitations. It is human nature to resent autocratic orders unless we are raised in that environment and expect it. Americans are not raised in that sphere, nor do we readily forgive a governmental official for officiousness. We Americans are extraordinarily sensitive to our prerogatives and our distance from our government. To have the FBI summarily demand the footage without sufficient explanation comes at a very tender moment in time, when the feds stand revealed as scofflaws and even as liars. This isn’t new; the federal government has gleefully circumvented its own constraints since 1776. Your actions seem to me as much petulant disobedience as rational stand, but that shouldn’t disqualify it as being valid. We Americans pride ourselves that we can be petulant, obstructive, and uncooperative if only because we can, because it is our fervent belief that it is the government that must be frustrated and unsure of itself, and not the citizenry. Theoretically, an American citizen should be able to oppose the entire structure of the Federal and state governments simply by saying “No. I don’t have to, and I’m not going to.” This is perilous in the extreme today and perhaps not even possible, but we cherish the belief nonetheless.
I think what may be at stake here in the arguments is what constitutes a journalist or a participant. The shield laws protect journalists so that they may gain access to situations or events to shed light on any given event or matter. Though there are shield laws in the State of California, their are no shield laws nationally that I am aware of. When the FBI takes this route – it’s a whole different ball game.
From what I saw of what you edited however – I don’t think I would classify you as a “journalist.” You were not an objective unbiased observer. I would say that you were a participant with a camera that happened to sell your footage to news organizations after you posted the video on the internet. I don’t think this classifies you as a journalist.
Should people see you point of view? Absolutely. That is what freedom of speech is all about. But I saw a lot of destruction of property on your video – and I don’t think that is freedom of speech. Those are crimes. And the restriction of others to move about freely while in the act of destruction of property does not fall under the banner of free speech in my opinion either.
You guys look like a bunch of bored unemployed StarBucks rejects trying to get some press while wrapping yourself in protections that you did not earn.
I think you will find – that as a participant – you will end up having to turn over the tape or spend some time in jail. But either way – you deserve your day in court.
Thanks for your thoughts Larry, I would tend to agree that the discussion of what does and does not constitute a journalist is definitely central to the issue at hand, and you are correct that there is no federal shield law.
The word journalist does not, have a firm and easily quantifiable definition, and throughout history who was and was not considered a journalist has changed over time. During college, I wrote news pieces for the Daily Nexus as well as the Santa Barbara Independent (a well respected weekly). Does that make me a journalist? Probably not, but it seems worth mentioning at this point in the conversation.
I will certainly agree that I was not an unbiased observer, but then again, neither is any other journalist everyone has a bias, that’s part of being human. In regards to my objectivity, given that my approach for covering protests is to shoot what I see, and to avoid asking pointed questions in interviews; I’d say my approach was somewhat objective. Yes, there is a good deal of subjectivity that goes on during the edit process as to what I use and what I leave behind, but that is certainly true of the corprorate TV news as well.
Tell me Larry, what is it that makes me a participant as opposed to a news-gatherer? Is it the format that I’ve adopted which is more aligned with cinema-verite film-making than the news at 11? Is it the fact that I titled the video with the same phrase the organizers had coined for the protest? Or is it simply because I, like the protesters am opposed to the G8 Summit?
Advocacy Journalism is generally considered to be a legitimate branch of the field when not disguised as “objective” news content. Shouldn’t practiioners of advocacy journalism be afforded the same legal rights? I do not think that the video I created is an example of advocacy journalism, anymore than I think that the corporate television news is an example of advocacy, but I do feel that this work should be protected no matter which side of the fence you feel that it falls upon.
The actions of the demonstraters and the legality of those actions isn’t particularly related to my role in capturing the event. And who are the guys who look like bored unemployeed Starbucks rejects? The people in the press conference or at the demonstration. Either way it seems like a petty point to try and make, but if you are referring to my lawyers and me at the press conference, rest assured that we’re more over-employed than unemployed.
“Advocacy Journalism” translated, means propagandist. That has nothing to do with news.
James, your spelling and grammar _are_ appalling.
hidden by request of author
Part of thread with Jared, hidden for consistency
Hidden at request of comments author
I’m sorry, but I find your reasoning for not turning over the footage to be quite childish. It is the equivalant of “taking your ball and going home”.
I am all for protecting the First Ammendment, but it is cases like this that cause the government to tighten restrictions and force themselves on us more than needed. Withholding footage that might (even if a slim chance) help identify the attacker to gain your 15 minutes of fame is wrong. It makes you no better than the person that carried out the assault.
I honestly hope that you never need the help of a police officer in your area. Though I am sure they would still be willing to help even you.
Jerry, your reasoning is questionable here. You are assuming that the desire of the Grand Jury to have the video has to do with the assualt on the police officer and there is no indication that it does. The fact that the video was taken on the same day, but of a different area of the demonstration would indicate that it is extremely unlikely that there could be something on film related to that incident. There is indication that the FBI is attempting to harass people who oppose the policies of the current administration. If the SFPD believed that there was evidence on the tape regarding the injury of the officer, I am sure they would be the ones requesting the tape, but they aren’t. The FBI is.
[...] Notable Entry for the April 07, 2006 ‘Informative’ Challenge: Josh Wolf: Josh’s Hearing at the Federal Grand Jury It takes alot of guts to hold fast under the legal pressure that Josh is facing. It’s nice to see someone fighting for what he believes in. [...]
Hi Josh,
Thanks for entering this video to VlogChallenge’s ‘DANGER’ challenge. It takes alot of guts to hold fast under the legal pressure that you are facing. It’s nice to see someone fighting for what he believes in. Also, I’m glad that you are not turning over the footage because I feel that these protesters are probably being unjustly persecuted.
BTW – your were recognized as one of our ’slammin’ entries of the week.
Cheers
Monique Danielle
VlogDiva.com
2250
If you are a student, you can claim your Student Credit Card now!
Busting again Stop monitor So
Take We apples Here for
Balls keys book Balls ball
Mmm… Good post
Will watch your blog
I love it. So what did I say the other da… oh. Yeah. Did I say that? Such a shame one couldn not do that for our brains. A replay button? Nah.
xanax…
news…
.