Who is Josh Wolf?

[stick0fdoom]

the fascist regime is taking over and they are starting with seemingly small fries but they must know that Josh Wolf is gonna ef some sheet up, go like hell Josh!!!!

[rat509]

have fun in jail schmuck! GG!

[agnosticpunk]

fuck u bitch!!Josh Wolf is my cousin!!and hes got more balls to do what hes doin than u will ever have!!!n' GG?i live in GARDEN GROVE, what do u know about the GG?shut your mouth!!!!

[GavinWatch]

the california shield law protects josh wolf's right to keep his source materials confidential. this is a case about an assault on a san francisco police officer and the vandalism of a san francisco police cruiser. i don't see how you can argue that wolf shouldn't be afforded the protections offered in california law. the media is not an investigative tool of the police--at least not in california.

[blahinhawaii]

The california court of appeals made it crystal clear that Josh is 100% covered by California's shield law. The feds know they have no jurisdiction but are trying to streth interstate commerce definitions to such a laughable extent that their actions should be criminal. If they KNOW they have no jurisdiction they should be taken to court. Immunity doesn't apply to criminals operating outside their jurisdictions.

[blahinhawaii]

What is ironic is that the FBI is supposed to be there to protect our rights and investigate "color of law" violations by cops of citizens' civil liberties. In this case they the FBI conspired with two SFPD detectives, and it turns out a prosecutor and federal judge to commit fraud in order to essentially KIDNAP someone and deny him his constitutional right to liberty. It is patriotic to not comply with an unlawful order by a despotic and corrupt government.

[clemtoe]

i have approved this video as a response to mine despite its bias. before long i'll be expanding my own video with a more complete telling of josh wolf and the choices which have landed him in jail than is availible from his proponents.

[FluxRostrum]

I've been waiting patiently for a loooong time to see ANYTHING from you that is supported by facts. .. uhhh, Bring it on.

Also, you should stop refering to Josh's original footage as "your own video". You added nothing to the video, which is commendable... You're associated text is shear bullshit as are your words here. But pleaase send me a message when you publish your "more complete telling" of Josh's story.

[clemtoe]

1) what of what i have presented can you refute?

2) the video was edited by josh wolf. what is he not authorizing us to see?

3) aren't you the loony with the conspiracy theory that i'm anthony lappe of gnn, suggesting that gnn is some kind of cia false-flag operation?

[blahinhawaii]

A police car is neither a channel of, instrumentality of nor does it have substantial impact on INTERSTATE COMMERCE. The Supreme court in 1995 confirmed that receiving federal funds (like the school in that case) does not give the U.S. jurisdiction.

A cop leaving his jurisdiction loses his police power and his enforcement acts are then criminal acts. Prosecutorial immunity does not make the the prosecutor, judge or you who support them any less despicable. The FBI agents should be sued.

[ZetaXenimus]

Unless you have a specific case to cite, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals disagrees with your assessment. One of the drawbacks of accepting federal funding is a loss of sovereignty in the appropriate areas.

[blahinhawaii]

It was one of the biggest cases of all time in the supreme court. For the first time in 60 years they did their job and curbed the unconstitutional lying and stretching the feds have done in regards to what substantially effects interstate commerce. Unlike the 9th circuit, the supreme court must have READ the constitution where it limits federal jurisdiction strictly to enforcing treaties and regulating interstate commerce. The supreme court case was United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

[ZetaXenimus]

Unless you have a specific case to cite, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals disagrees with your assessment. One of the drawbacks of accepting federal funding is a loss of sovereignty in the appropriate areas.

[blahinhawaii]

It was one of the biggest cases of all time in the supreme court. For the first time in 60 years they did their job and curbed the unconstitutional lying and stretching the feds have done in regards to what substantially effects interstate commerce. Unlike the 9th circuit, the supreme court must have READ the constitution where it limits federal jurisdiction strictly to enforcing treaties and regulating interstate commerce. The supreme court case was United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

[ZetaXenimus]

Lopez was an example of the state warping the Interstate Commerce clause in a way to project its authority, when such was impossible; eg: Stating that since violence hurts economic activity, they have a right to regulate it everywhere.

[blahinhawaii]

Yes and they could have argued that since the school in question received Federal grants that the school had thereby ceded juridiction or as you said "sovereignty," to the grounds federal funds helped pay to build and maintain--but although schools and police departments execute state policy in education and law enforcement they don't represent the STATE or its people do they? Transfering your tax funds over to Washington affects commerce no more than taking a grant or tax credit does.

[blahinhawaii]

The thing is if the flawed 9th circuit logic wasn't corrected by the supreme court then any incident involving anyone who gets a school loan or grant as well as anyone who pays income or gas taxes is subject to federal jurisdiction--the whole idea is ABSURD. IF you like case citations check out my video on this very subject. It has a bunch of interesting cases mentioned.

[clemtoe]

though josh wolf martyr propganda omits it, wolf pleaded the fifth in the grand jury. in other words, he refused to produce the video because he and his attorney believed that the evidence therein would incriminate him.

[FluxRostrum]

And since when is using your constituional rights a crime?

[clemtoe]

defying a subpoena is not a right protected under the first amendment.

[clemtoe]

pardon me, it would have been more responsive of me to ask you to refer your question to josh wolf. he was the one who pleaded the fifth on the basis that compliance with the subpoena would be self-incriminating.

[andypandapanda]

he didn't plead the fifth. no one suspects him of a crime or has charged him with any crime. he refused to testify before the grand jury on journalistic principles not on the grounds of the 5th amendment. there is nothing in his video that is self incriminating. he and his lawyers have signed sworn statements that there is no evidence of any crime on the videos. they have offered to shoe the video to judge alsup. every major journalist organization in the country has praised him for his stand.

[clemtoe]

the journalistic establishment awarded walter durante a pulitzer for his propaganda work on behalf of stalinist russia.

[clemtoe]

"Mr. Wolf has asserted his Fifth Amendment Right against Self incrimination at the June 1, 2006 court hearing and grand jury proceedings oif said date. Mr. Wolf once again through council invokes his Fifth Amendment Right against self incrimination in this pleading." -- Jose Louis Fuentes, Attorney for Joshua Wolf

[clemtoe]

"Mr. Wolf has asserted his Fifth Amendment Right against Self incrimination at the June 1, 2006 court hearing and grand jury proceedings oif said date. Mr. Wolf once again through council invokes his Fifth Amendment Right against self incrimination in this pleading." Jose Louis Fuentes, Attorney for Joshua Wolf.

[GavinWatch]

Whether he asserted his fifth amendment rights or his first amendment rights is irrelevent. it's the bill of rights, and not grounds for imprisonment.

[clemtoe]

lol!

[blahinhawaii]

As soon as you are arrested you have the right to remain silent. If you can be imprisoned for your silence alone how is that a right? In this time of direct attack or civil liberties you defend the position that we should lay a precedent for unrestricted federal government access (where there is no legislative jurisdiction) to our papers and effects, our diaries and our personal video footage. This is not as cut and dry as you pretend and your police state attitude is disgusting and shameful.

[clemtoe]

wolf wasn't called to testify against himself. he was subpoenaed to render documentation of a third party commiting a crime. the subpoena called for specific materials which were determined to be of value to the court under the standard of "reasonable suspicion". the reasonable suspicion standard was met because the portions of the material wolf had made public of his own volition depicted the moments leading up to and following the crime (which was a near-fatal assault with a blunt object)