Letters Desperately Needed For Jeremy Hammond's Sentencing by 10/15

The time is now to support Jeremy Hammond

"You don't have to know Jeremy to help, you just have to care" 

~ Jeremy's friend Grace said that at the #FreeHammond/#FreeBB fundraiser in NY in August.  It is doubtless true.  Jeremy Hammond is a prisoner pending sentencing for computer hacking crimes. His crimes were acts of civil disobedience, acts of protest against an encroaching surveillance state. He is part of a new breed of electronic dissident, a list populated by such pop heroes as Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Barrett Brown, Julian Assange and the PayPal14.   Jeremy faces a maximum of 10 years under the plea agreement he signed.  The government will want the full 10 years.  Will you please help us ask the judge for less time?  

Jeremy’s sentencing is not going to be delayed any further.  It will go forward mid-November.  Letters to the court in support of Jeremy need to be in by no later than the 15^th of October so they can be submitted to the court - that means you should do it now - TODAY! This is important. If you care about Jeremy Hammond, the freedom of the internet or the encroaching surveillance state, you need to take action on this now - this is the opportunity to have your voice heard on this matter.  Any and all help that you all can give, including both passing this along and writing your own letter to the court about why they should not give Jeremy 10 years is not only appreciated, but is desperately needed.   Please spread this message around and let’s get as many letters as we can and let’s make sure they are all thoughtful and powerful.  This is important for Jeremy and important for freedom. Please speak now on this crucial issue.

WHO IS JEREMY HAMMOND?

Jeremy Hammond is a gifted young computer programmer facing a decade in prison. His crime? Leaking information from the private intelligence firm Strategic Forecasting, information which revealed that Stratfor had been spying on human rights activists at the behest of corporations and the U.S. government.


In March 2012 Jeremy was arrested in his Chicago home and charged with violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the same legislation used to prosecute Aaron Swartz. This outdated law, written before the Internet was even created, gives absurdly broad powers to corporations and prosecutors to criminalize an array of online activity and pursue extreme and disproportionate sentences. By contrast, of Jeremy’s co-defendants in Ireland and in the U.K. none will spend more than 16 months in prison, and many have been released already.


Jeremy has been denied bail, cut off from his family, and held in solitary confinement– treatment normally reserved for the most egregious offenses. He did nothing for personal gain and everything in hopes of making the world a better place. He is facing a maximum sentence of ten years, but the minimum is zero. He has been jailed since March 2012 awaiting trial and now sentencing. It’s time for him to come home.

Read More about Jeremy:

Jeremy Hammond Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hammond
Rolling Stone Article: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-rise-and-fall-of-jeremy-hammond-enemy-of-the-state-20121207
Chicago Magazine: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/July-2007/The-Hacktivist/
Huffington Post Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vivien-lesnik-weisman/post_4885_b_3352308.html 

Jeremy's twin brother Jason with attorneys Margaret and Sarah Kuntsler

THE DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING THESE LETTERS IS OCTOBER 15, 2013.

Completed letters can be (1) faxed to 347-402-2014, (2) scanned and emailed to sarah at kunstlerlaw dot net, or (3) mailed to:

The Law Office of Susan G. Kellman

25 Eighth Avenue

Brooklyn, New York 11217

Please do not send your letter directly to the Court – it will not be read.

Anonymous Letters

It is much better if letters are signed, have the appearance of coming from real people, and have return addresses. We understand if people wish to remain anonymous, and would prefer they submit letters anonymously than not at all, but the Judge will place much greater weight on the letters that include this information.

It is preferential that letters go straight to Sarah Kuntsler or to Susan Kellman's office.  For those that wish to participate but still wish to retain their privacy/anonymity: I will collect letters to go to Ms. Kellman's office.  If you want your letter printed out and do not want to send it straight to Jeremy's attorneys of record, Ms. Kellman and Sarah Kuntsler, you can send them to me and I will overnight the letters.  I must have them by early morning, PST on the 14th so I can get letters to New York by the 15th.  Whatever way they come to me I will do my best to ensure that they remain as anonymous as possible, including following whatever instructions that you give me to the best of my ability.  I will handle all letters with "attorney/client" confidence and submit only that portion of the communication that is necessary for the judge to review it. That means, for example, printing out an email as opposed to forwarding it (and its metadata), or downloading a document from jabber and printing it. More instructions for Anonymous authors can be found below.  

My contact information is:

JAY LEIDERMAN
CERTIFIED CRIMINAL LAW SPECIALIST

CALIFORNIA BAR BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION

LAW OFFICES OF JAY LEIDERMAN
5740 RALSTON STREET SUITE #300
VENTURA, CALIFORNIA 93003

TEL: (805) 654 0200 ext. 24
FAX: (805) 654 0280

EMAIL: JAY@CRIMINAL-LAWYER.ME
WEB:    WWW.JAYLEIDERMAN.COM

My jabber is: jayleiderman@jabber.ccc.de

TEMPLATE FOR LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR JEREMY HAMMOND

Jeremy Hammond's sentencing hearing is set for Friday, November 15 at 10am at the Federal District Court for  the Southern District of New York.  We are collecting letters of support on his behalf. Please submit your letter by October 15, 2013 so that it can be included in our submission to the Court. Please do not send your letter directly to the Court – it will not be read. Below is a suggested template for support letters.

ADDRESS:

Honorable Loretta A. Preska

Chief Judge

Southern District of New York

500 Pearl Street

New York, NY 10007

DATE:

GREETING: Dear Judge Preska:

BODY OF LETTER: Briefly discuss yourself – who you are, your position in work or your role in the community. If you are not personally acquainted with Jeremy, tell the Judge why you are interested in his case. State that you are aware that Jeremy has pled guilty to a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Tell the Judge why you believe he should be treated with compassion.

If you know Jeremy personally, and can offer some personal observations, you will want to mention this in your letter.  It would be helpful to include:

·         Jeremy's character, compassion, integrity, accomplishments, interests, relationships, interaction with and treatment of other people, and your personal and/or professional relationship with him. 

·         If there are specific anecdotes that will help the reader develop a better picture of Jeremy, we encourage you to share those.  It is a good idea to include a brief description of you:  your occupation, activities in which you might be involved and any other points which will establish your identity and your ability to advise the court about Jeremy.   

If you would like to address the disparate treatment of Jeremy's co-defendants, or put his case in the context of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), you may want to mention some of the following points:

·         Jeremy's co-defendants in Ireland and in the United Kingdom were given treatment that is disparate, those who are already convicted will not spend more than 16 months in prison, some have already been released

·         The disproportionate sentences associated with the CFAA, or that the protection the CFAA affords to corporations is greater than those it affords to individuals, who may be subjected to surveillance by private corporations such as Stratfor. (For more information on the CFAA, please visit the website of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, https://www.eff.org/issues/cfaa)

Whether you know Jeremy or not, you may want to mention that he had no financial gain from his actions, which he undertook as politically-motivated acts of civil disobedience. Do not try to argue that Jeremy is not guilty or was unfairly convicted. You are asking the Judge for leniency.

Since this is not an effort to mislead or create a false impression, you are encouraged to write an honest, straightforward word portrait of Jeremy.  Do not hesitate to write from the heart, and/or emphasize anything you feel is important.  One of the goals of your letter is to enable the reader to see Jeremy through your eyes.

It is best to write in plain, everyday, conversational language, as if you were speaking to the reader.  If possible, your letter should be typewritten, and, if appropriate, on business stationary, and addressed to me.  I will deliver it to the parties that will be reading it.

If you are anonymous and wish to remain anonymous, please give enough identifying information about you to allow the reader to understand who it is that you are, without giving too much information.  For example, if you use a Twitter handle, you may use that as your identification.  You can identify simply as a member of a particular group.  Please do not fail to write a letter because you do not to give your full name and/or other identifying information to the government.  We can work with whatever limitations there are.  

Sign the letter and include your return address if you are willing and able to do so. Completed letters can be (1) faxed to 347-402-2014, (2) scanned and emailed to sarah at kunstlerlaw dot net, or (3) mailed to: The Law Office of Susan G. Kellman; 25 Eighth Avenue; Brooklyn, New York 11217

                  

If you have any questions, please call 718-783-8200 or email sarah at kunstlerlaw dot net. You can also contact me, my contact information is above, my email is jay@criminal-lawyer.me. Please remember that Sarah Kuntsler and Susan Kellman are Jeremy's attorneys of record. I am simply a member of his "legal team" and am not acting in an official capacity.  Ms. Kuntsler and Ms. Kellman have final authority in this case.  

Original instructions from freejeremy.net: http://freejeremy.net/giant-banner/join-us-in-asking-for-leniency-in-jeremys-sentencing/ 

Let's work together and #FreeHammond #FreeJeremy 

Thank you so much for your assistance in this very important matter.  Your letter will make your voice heard on the is matter and may very well make the difference in this sentencing hearing.  

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. We know how to put a proper price upon goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. 

Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, Winter 1776.  It is as appropriate now as it was at Valley Forge.

It has been long enough

Let's bring Jeremy home

A Donation Plea From "Free Barrett Brown"

Dear friend of press freedom,

I’m writing to you with an urgent request: your support for the legal defense fund of Barrett Brown, an investigative journalist now facing life in prison as a result of his writing and research.

American journalism is under attack in 2013. In recent years we’ve seen an unprecedented wave of criminal investigations targeting reporters and whistleblowers, while prosecutors abuse vague laws regarding computer use to threaten activists with outrageous sentences. Today Barrett Brown faces the full weight of this crackdown. It’s up to us to ensure that Barrett sees justice and defeats the wildly excessive charges against him.

Barrett’s career as a journalist is a brave and colorful one. He has written for publications including Vanity Fair, the Guardian, and the Huffington Post; and he co-authored a popular book, Flock of Dodos. In 2010, the revelations brought to light by WikiLeaks spurred Barrett to start investigating the secretive world of private cybersecurity, defense and intelligence contractors. Barrett founded an independent think-tank, Project PM, and started reporting on the Anonymous hacktivist collective.

When Anonymous hacked into the records of the private security firm HBGary Federal in early 2011, Barrett’s zeal for transparency in taxpayer-funded yet little-known defense projects led him to spend months researching this company’s corrupt activities. He did the same in 2012, after the leak of thousands of records from the private intelligence firm Stratfor.

• Glenn Greenwald: ”Brown is a serious journalist who has spent the last several years doggedly investigating the shadowy and highly secretive underworld of private intelligence and defense contractors, who work hand-in-hand with the agencies of the Surveillance and National Security State in all sorts of ways that remain completely unknown to the public. It is virtually impossible to conclude that the obscenely excessive prosecution he now faces is unrelated to that journalism and his related activism.”

Despite his achievements, Barrett now waits in prison to fight a sentence of up to 105 years. The 17 charges against him are based on Barrett having blogged openly about FBI harassment of him and his family; on Barrett allegedly having hidden a laptop when a family member’s home was raided by the FBI in search of evidence against him; on his allegedly having “trafficked in stolen goods” — that is, Stratfor documents containing clients’ credit card data; and on his alleged “dissemination” of the Stratfor documents by simply copying and pasting a link to them in an online chat. There is no indication that Barrett sought to use the credit card numbers in any way; in fact, he publicly condemned Anonymous’ suggestion of doing so. As a journalist, Barrett felt responsible for exposing to the public the inner workings of firms contracting with the U.S. government — and for his efforts, he may receive a lifetime in prison.

Barrett’s prosecution highlights critical issues for American journalists, activists, and internet users:

• The right to link. The charges against Barrett for sharing the Stratfor data represent an attempt to criminalize linking. What does this mean for the rights of internet users, let alone journalists who link to primary source material? Online linking is used by millions daily. What absurd legal theory makes an internet user responsible for the content and consequences of a shared link, resulting in criminal charges?

• Information and press freedom. Barrett’s work to uncover the activities of private security and intelligence companies made him a prime target for prosecution. If citizens are prevented from researching the growing surveillance state, what will become of privacy, transparency, and civil liberties in America? Already we see chilling effects on journalists working to shed light on corruption and abuse among government contractors.

• Selective prosecution. Many others — including established reporters — shared the same link to Stratfor data named in Barrett’s indictment. Why is only Barrett being prosecuted? And why is the FBI worried enough about the speech of an unarmed writer to conduct heavily-armed raids on his home? Barrett’s case is a prime example of the DOJ’s current prosecutorial abuse of journalists, whistleblowers, and information activists.

• Reporters’ privilege. The laptop that Barrett allegedly hid contained journalistic sources and work product, including a book in progress. The First Amendment protects reporters from revealing confidential information or sources. It isn’t hard to conclude that the charges based on Barrett’s alleged concealment amount to an effort to stifle his reporting on America’s growing surveillance industry.

Fortunately, two of the most skilled and dedicated lawyers in the country have taken up the fight: Charles Swift and Ahmed Ghappour, best known for their advocacy on behalf of Guantánamo detainees, winning a victory over the Bush administration in a 2006 Supreme Court case. But even with expert representation, Barrett’s defense calls for resources that he doesn’t have. Your support is urgently needed to help Barrett regain his freedom and continue his vital work. And this is not Barrett’s fight alone — the outcome of this case will affect every American’s rights to free speech, to independent journalism, and to political activism. Not only does Barrett deserve a future — so do all of us, to preserve our right to know what our government does in secret, yet in our names.

Barrett’s trial begins in September. His defense is being funded entirely through individual donors. With less than three months to go, will you help today?

Three easy ways to contribute:

• WePay

• PayPal: donate@freebarrettbrown.org

• Checks or money orders mailed to: Free Barrett Brown Ltd., P.O. Box 2658, Amherst, MA 01004

Suggested levels of support:

•     $30 — Friend of Online Journalism

•     $60 — Friend of Press Freedom

•     $120 — Friend of Barrett Brown

•     $300 — Friend of the First Amendment

•     $600 — Friend of the Constitution

•     $1000 — Friend of Justice

Don’t let the government take away a courageous journalist’s life with abusive prosecution for alleged information “crimes.” Free Barrett Brown.

With many thanks, and in solidarity,

Kevin M. Gallagher
Director
Free Barrett Brown

Twitter: @FreeBarrett_

Facebook: Free Barrett Brown

Website: freebarrettbrown.org

Jay Leiderman on Voice of Russia Radio Discussing the Bradley Manning Trial

http://voicerussia.com/radio_broadcast/70924886/114960376.html 

Afternoon Show   →   Opinion: Manning trial is about 'the public's right to know what their government is up to'

Tags: Politics, Interviews, US, Wikileaks, Bradley Manning

Rob Sachs

Jun 3, 2013 14:56

Military. iStockphoto/Thinkstock.

WASHINGTON -- The Bradley Manning trial began Monday at Fort Meade, MD. In February, Manning pleaded guilty to lesser charges that could result in 20 years behind bars, but prosecutors are hoping for an "aiding the enemy" charge that could result in life behind bars.

Voice of Russia's Rob Sachs talks with Jay Leiderman, a lawyer based in California who often represents those in the internet hacking community

http://voicerussia.com/radio_broadcast/70924886/114960376.html 

Please visit the Bradley Manning Support Network to learn more about the case: http://www.bradleymanning.org/

“If you had free reign over classified networks… and you saw incredible things, awful things… things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC… what would you do?”

“God knows what happens now.  Hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms… I want people to see the truth… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.”

-Quotes from an online chat attributed to Bradley Manning

Nobel Peace Prize nominee PFC Bradley Manning, a 25-year-old Army intelligence analyst, who released the Collateral Murder video, that shows the killing of unarmed civilians and two Reuters journalists, by a US Apache helicopter crew in Iraq. Manning also shared documents known as the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs, and series of embarrassing US diplomatic cables. These documents were published by the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks, and they have illuminated such issues as the true number and cause of civilian casualties in Iraq, along with a number of human rights abuses by U.S.-funded contractors and foreign militaries, and the role that spying and bribes play in international diplomacy. Given the war crimes exposed by these documents,  PFC Bradley Manning should be given a medal of honor.

Read more about Bradley Mannning here.

Julian Assange runs for Australian Senate

Jay Leiderman on RT News 4 February 2013

Published on Feb 4, 2013Julian Assange is no stranger to controversy and this time the whistleblower is making headlines for a different reason. Australia has confirmed that the WikiLeaks co-founder is running for office. Assange has made a name for himself for exposing government secrets, but now he seeks a senate seat as a member of the WikiLeaks Party. So does candidate Assange have a fighting chance to infiltrate the political world? Jay Leiderman a lawyer for Leiderman Devine LLP gives us his take on the matter.

Find RT America in your area: http://rt.com/usa/where-to-watch/Or watch us online: http://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air/
Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTAmericaFollow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_America

Category
News & Politics

Protest Speech and the Digital Revolution

The unpolished draft of the op-ed written for the Guardian

There is no weapon on the planet more powerful than speech.  In recent years, the digital revolution has led to new and unique ways for people to express themselves.  Speech has flourished around the globe, and brought the world closer together.  As a lawyer and as someone who promotes the advancement of individual liberties, I was fascinated by the advent of online speech, and then the advent of online protest. 

While affixing your e-signature to an online petition is a new and somewhat direct way to “petition your government for a redress of grievances,” I am most concerned with advocating for more immediate and effective manners of protest.   Accordingly, I was quite interested in December 2010 when the hacktivist collective Anonymous took to the internet to voice their displeasure with PayPal over their part in the banking blockade of Wikileaks.  A reported 10,000 protestors around the world voiced their displeasure with PayPal by using a protest method known as DDoS.  DDoS is the functional equivalent of hitting the refresh button on a computer repeatedly.  With enough people refreshing enough times, the site is flooded with traffic and slowed or even temporarily knocked offline.  No damage is done to the site or backing computer system, and when the protest is over, the site resumes business as usual. 

This is not “hacking.”  It is protest.  It is speech. 

True, customers of the site are temporarily inconvenienced, but democracy is often messy and inconvenient. Moreover, to hear the voice of your fellow citizen for a moment should always be worth slowing down for.  Exposure to new or differing views enriches us all.  Such was the case with the 2010 PayPal DDoS protest.

Or, at least, it was until the United States Government decided to serve 42 warrants and indict 14 protesters.  While protest crimes have typically been seen as tantamount to nuisance type behavior, like trespassing or loitering, these were different.  The 14 PayPal defendants, some of whom were teenagers when the protest occurred, find themselves looking at 15 years in federal prison.  For exercising their free speech rights.  For redressing their grievances to PayPal, a major corporation.  For standing up for what they believed was right.  Instead of facing a $50 fine, like one would face for traditional protest crimes like a sit-in, the PayPal defendant’s freedoms are in real jeopardy. 

To address this situation, there was some more traditional, yet still-modern speech aimed at the White House.  An online a petition has been launched asking that DDoS be treated as speech.  I wholeheartedly support this concept.  Being mindful that all protest must be reasonable in time, place and manner, I believe that there is room in cyberspace, indeed in the world, for this type of protest activity. 

The example used above, that of the PayPal protest, is again apt to analogize why DDoS is speech.  Just like civil rights protestors who went to the Woolworth’s lunch counter in the segregated American South of the 1960’s to seek a simple meal, people went to PayPal to express their desire to make a donation to WikiLeaks.  In Woolworth’s the protestors made plain their goal: “If you serve me a meal, I will eat it, pay for it and then I will leave.”  This simple concept was lost on the Jim Crow South.  And so protest became necessary.  Certainly this situation is a lesser evil.  No one suggests it is not.  But the analogy is apt nonetheless.  Thousands of PayPal protestors said, via their protest speech in DDoS form: “I want to make a donation to WikiLeaks, I’ll take up my bandwidth to do that, then I’ll leave, you’ll make money, I’ll feel fulfilled, everyone wins.”  But alas, PayPal, and their parent company eBay were not in the win-win business.  They were in the censorship business.  Censorship is not something Anonymous suffers lightly.  PayPal will take donations for the Ku Klux Klan, other racist and questionable organizations, but they won’t process donations for WikiLeaks.  So it came to pass that thousands of displeased people around the globe voiced their displeasure via a DDoS protest.   All the PayPal protesters did was take up some bandwidth.  PayPal claimed – almost as a cry of victory – that their site never even went offline.  In that example, DDoS was used as an almost pure form of protest expression.  Accordingly, it was speech, it should absolutely be recognized as such and protected as such.   The law should be changed. 

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is being used to stifle new and creative forms of online expression.  This type of harmless creative protest should be encouraged.  Our nation was built upon the principles of free speech.  If the founders of this great nation saw the abuses of the laws as applied to these minor protests I think they would be shocked and offended. 

Our best and brightest should be encouraged to find new methods of expression.  Direct actions in protest should be encouraged, not stifled.  The dawning of the digital age should be seen as an opportunity to expand our knowledge and collectively work together to enhance our communication.  Government should have the greatest interest in promoting speech, especially unpopular speech.  If new and contrary methods of speech became mainstream, they would need no protection.  The majority, the corporatocracy and the oligarchs are, no doubt, displeased by dissent.  Such is the nature of dissent.  When the world becomes perfect, no one will ever have need to protest.  Until then, the Government should never be used to stifle the new and creative – not to mention effective – methods of speech and expression.   Since the PayPal prosecution there has been no DDoS protests on that scale.  Speech has been chilled.  

Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas said: “Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.”  Toward that end, let’s begin a conversation about carving out some room for DDoS to be seen as protest speech deserving of First Amendment protection.