Skip navigation

Tag Archives: legal

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and I am not your attorney. This blog entry not intended as legal advice. If you need legal help, only consult with a barred attorney. This blog entry is an opinion piece based on my personal experiences as a citizen and is only provided for informational and entertainment purposes. The information below could be wrong or outdated so you must always check with a legal professional who can provide you with the most up-to-date legal information.

It has been brought to my attention that the J. A. ordeal is quickly spinning out of control in a really ugly way. Someone has apparently gone and tagged his house in Berlin. Or so it has been claimed on Twitter. This is escalation plain and simple and must be stopped in its tracks.

Τhe only thing I support and encourage right now is that all of the alleged victims contact the rightful authorities in the Netherlands at Openbaar Ministerie Parket Oost Brabant (Leeghwaterlaan 8, 5223 BA ‘s-Hertogenbosch Phone: 0031 88 699 1800) and Politie Brabant Zuid-Oost (Ruysdaelbaan 35, 5613 DX Eindhoven, Phone: 0031 343 578 844) for the sake of due process in a court of law. J. A.’s PhD supervisor at the University of Eindhoven, dr. prof. Daniel J Bernstein, wrote an article on his cryptology blog lamenting the fact that due process is dead on the internet and vigilantism is king. I disagree, and I believe we should restore due process right now.

In your interactions/correspondence with the above authorities, make sure to mention:
– Wetboek van Strafrecht Artikel 246 (Dutch Criminal Code article 246, sexual intimidation and molestation; involuntary kissing falls under this category)
– Wetboek van Strafrecht Artikel 242 (Dutch Criminal Code article 242, rape; includes all forms of involuntary foreplay, involuntary oral sex, involuntary manual manipulation of the genitals)
– Wetboek van Strafrecht Artikel 300 (Dutch Criminal Code article 300, maltreatment; includes making people use drugs against their will or unbeknown to them)
– Wetboek van Strafrecht Artikel 285 (Dutch Criminal Code article 285, threats; leaving a message on a person’s pillow with a text such as “Don’t make us use extreme measures. Hand it all over.” falls under this category)
– Wetboek van Strafrecht Artikel 141 (Dutch Criminal Code 141, violent assault committed by a group, ie “gangbanging”)
– Wetboek van Strafrecht Artikel 285b 1 (Dutch Criminal Code 285b1, stalking; includes  retaliatory harassment against a woman who has turned down sexual advances, or the cornering of women at a party)
– Wetboek van Strafrecht Artikel 266 (Dutch Criminal Code 266, public insult; making disparaging sexual jokes at work about colleagues falls under this category)
– Wetboek van Strafrecht Artikel 262 (Dutch Criminal Code 262, defamation; making false statements in public about having had sex with someone when you haven’t had sex in order to humiliate them in the presence of others falls under this category)

J. A. is a German resident, but he is also a PhD student in the city of Eindhoven in the Netherlands and hence the Netherlands has jurisdiction in this matter regardless of where in the world the alleged actionable conduct occured. Contrary to what you’ve read on the internet, Dutch law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities are actually extremely accomodating of charges filed by Americans against Dutch citizens over conduct that has occured in another jurisdiction than the Netherlands. Dutch authorities will happily and readily investigate such reports and will spend many years doing so if need be, over the most minor of misdemeanours. They love nothing more than to process charges filed by Americans and are extremely thorough in doing so, to the point of performing 9:00 AM home raids on suspects with 11 officers present to arrest the suspect. The suspect will be detained for at least 3 but up to a maximum of 18 days in isolation during which they will be subjected to daily interrogations until they cave in and cooperate. Repeatedly asking to have one’s attorney present during those interrogations is of no use, unless one agrees to answer the questions asked in the presence of an attorney. During those 3 to 18 days of detention, the suspect is held completely incommunicado, they have no access to media such as internet, TV or newspapers and are only allowed to call the outside world to talk to their attorney and no one else. The detention cells that suspects are held within are sexagonal units that have been designed to make it seem as if the walls are caving in on the suspect to increase their sense of guilt. There are no windows with bars as per the cliche. There are no windows at all and there is no natural sunlight, no ability to see what is going on outside. A thin bar at the top of the back of the cell made of opaque yellow plastic gives a hint of dusk and dawn outside, but this could easily be faked with lamps and one loses one’s sense of time after two days. There is no ability to hear what is happening in nearby cells or to overhear discussions in the hall. One becomes quickly aware of the fact that one is  completely isolated. One can only imagine a space station or submarine being a similarly isolating experience. One is not given or allowed a pen and paper to record anything. Not even during the interrogations. One only has ones own memory one’s disposal to record and remember what is happening, what was asked and what answer was given during interrogations. Food is served twice a day. Everything prepackaged and nothing fresh. Detention in the Netherlands is a very interesting and unforgetable experience for suspects in and of itself.

You on the other hand, as the American accuser reporting someone in the Netherlands, you will be addressed in your own American-English language by Dutch law enforcement who are all too happy to get to practice their English on you and gain valuable experience working on a transnational case such as yours. You can submit your exhibits as-is and  won’t have to pay a dime to translate anything from American English to Dutch (the public prosecutor will do it for you for free) and you will merely be interrogated about your report once by means of teleconference. Discovery in the Netherlands is extremely limited compared to the US and is not intrusive at all, because the suspect is only allowed to ask you 15 questions at the most during an interrogation, whereas the suspect will be asked up to 150 questions or more over many subsequent interrogations. Furthermore, your name as an accuser will never be published anywhere due to Dutch privacy laws, and the accused and his lawyers are obliged by bar rules to keep your identity private. They are not allowed to leak anything to the press or the internet (if they do, there will be additional prosecutions to have the information removed from the internet). That’s it. Contrary to the myths doing the rounds online, there is absolutely nothing intrusive or traumatizing about filing charges in the Netherlands as an American abroad.  In fact, if you as an American have trouble filing a report against someone yourself, there at least one or two legal firms in Amsterdam who have experience filing charges on behalf of Americans against Dutch residents who will gladly assist you with your report. Do not worry about the court being inherently biased against you as a woman or man who engages in kink. American courts might be concervative and biased against kinky lifestyles but Dutch courts aren’t like that at all. In fact, many Dutch judges are themselves BDSM practitioners and experienced sadists in their private lives (I really don’t know about their professional lives and hence can’t speak to that), and will not bat an eye or mind at all that you are too. These judges understand what the refusal to stop when someone uses their safeword means. 😉

So, let’s stop the internet vigilantism spiraling out of control, and let’s bring in the lawyers, the police, the judges and the prosecutors to do what they do best. Let’s prove dr. prof. Daniel J Bernstein wrong and let’s restore due process.

Institutionalized American exceptionalism at the International Criminal Court, or why Americans are literally above the law and will never be persecuted much less tried for war-crimes at the “World Court” or ICC.

The 2002 American Service Members’ Protection Act threatened to limit us participation in un peacekeeping operations, unless the Americans involved were granted immunity from any potential icc prosecution

it also authorized us Marines to ‘storm the beaches of Holland to rescue any American citizen who might languish in icc custody’

In response to this threat to invade the Netherlands for the purpose of “rescuing” (read: kidnapping) an American citizen brough to trial at the ICC, the World Court gave explicit assurances to America that no American official will ever be prosecuted or indicted by the ICC.

I have seem may people in the social media who have recently been reblogging and posting a bunch of articles suggesting American will now finally be persecuted for war-crimes. I have said this before and I will say it again: no American will ever be persecuted for war crimes, ever. Americans have literally been declared above the law and beyond reproach by the World Court prosecutors. I have been posted the article below from the New Left review, and I will continue to post this until people get this through their heads: America LITERALLY THREATENED TO INVADE THE HAGUE if an American official was ever indicted, captured and brought to The Hague for trial at the world court. In fact, America literally adopted a new law, the so-called 2002 American Service Members’ Protection Act, giving America the right to invade the Netherlands and kidnap any American official brought to trial at the World Court in The Hague. It is an article of faith of the globalist courts that no persecution of an American citizen will ever be undertaken and that International Criminal Law is mainly to be used to civilize the “dark savages”.

Get it through your heads people: Americans are literally above the law when it comes to international criminal law. International criminal law is just a means to institutionalize American white supremacy and American exceptionalism and to extend American jurisdiction beyond American borders, giving America the literal right to invade other countries, including Western countries like the Netherlands, to kidnap American officials.

Now, let’s quote the relevant excerpt in full from the New Left Review article about the World Court or ICC caving into American threats to invade The Hague and declaring Americans literally above and beyond the law when it comes to the indictment of war criminals on the basis of International Criminal Law at the ICC:

Fears that the icc might become ‘politicized’—code for the investigation of American war crimes—were repeatedly rejected as ‘unwarranted’ and ‘far-fetched’, a most ‘unlikely eventuality’, against which the Rome Statute had plentiful ‘safeguards’, ‘checks’ and ‘restraints’.34 The Bush Administration, gearing up after 9/11 for the invasion of Afghanistan, and with sights already set on Iraq, demanded harder guarantees.

The 2002 American Service Members’ Protection Act threatened to limit us participation in un peacekeeping operations, unless the Americans involved were granted immunity from any potential icc prosecution it also authorized us Marines to ‘storm the beaches of Holland to rescue any American citizen who might languish in icc custody’.

The courts’ jurisdiction was established by fiat of the occupying powers, who appointed both prosecutors and judges, while granting themselves impunity. As the Indian judge Radhabinod Pal put it in his dissenting judgement at Tokyo, it appeared that ‘only a lost war is a crime’.

Bush need not have worried. As Luis Moreno Ocampo, the incoming icc Prosecutor, hastened to assure a us official in March 2003, he ‘could not imagine launching a case against a us citizen’.

The Athens Bar Association submitted a call for an investigation of acts in Iraq ordered by Blair, Geoff Hoon and Jack Straw.40 Ignoring the whole question of the Iraq war, Ocampo’s first statement as Prosecutor suggested that the Court might enjoy a Zen-like inactivity: its efficiency should not be measured by the number of cases it took up; on the contrary, ‘the absence of trials led by this court as a consequence of the regular functioning of national institutions would be its major success.’41 The ngo lobby was affronted by this do-nothing approach; the Prosecutor had to do something. The Office of the Prosecutor began scanning the world for sites of violence other than Afghanistan and Iraq. At his July 2003 press conference, Ocampo announced that he would be examining the situation in eastern Congo.

In July 2012 the Office of the Prosecutor opened an investigation into the situation in Mali, its eighth formal investigation—and the eighth in Africa.75 The Court’s myopic focus has caused anger on the continent. That military intervention by former colonial powers has been followed, almost de jure, by juridical intervention by the icc, leaves Africans understandably suspicious. At the African Union summit in Addis Ababa in May 2013, Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn accused the icc of ‘hunting’ Africans because of their race.76 The notion that international criminal law is a neo-colonial imposition is no longer limited to critical international legal theorists; it is now heard most loudly from the post-colonial elites of Addis Ababa and other African capitals.

That the Court’s investigations have coincided with imperial concerns is apparent; that they are motivated by simple racism is less evident, although this is not to downplay the court’s role in reproducing a longstanding dynamic of racialization in international law.78 On the Court’s record, crimes against humanity and war crimes are acts committed by non-Westerners. The Hague’s courtrooms replicate a historical pattern in which, as Makau Mutua puts it, ‘morality comes from the West as a civilizing agent against lower forms of civilization’.

The doctrine of ‘complementarity’, too, affirms a sharp division between Western countries, with their developed judicial architecture—which, as the German representative gloated, will never be found unable to carry out a prosecution—and the rest of the world, where the icc may more readily make out a case for a judicial system’s ineffectiveness. In this respect, the Court appears to reproduce the colonial international law of the 19th century, underpinned by a distinction between civilized and uncivilized states.

As the reactions to Ngudjolo’s acquittal revealed, many of the human-rights and international-justice advocates who once concerned themselves with the rights of the accused have become preoccupied with victims and the ‘scourge of impunity’ instead. Prosecution and conviction are increasingly conceptualized as the ‘fulfilment of the victims’ human right to a remedy’, as Darryl Robinson has noted.85 Amnesty International once focused on the release of political prisoners, with ‘amnesty’ central to its mission; on the treatment of defendants in custody and their right to a fair trial. Today, with the rise of an international-criminal-justice complex, Amnesty consistently opposes amnesty laws and is not wont to challenge the treatment of defendants accused of international crimes.86 This was evident at the Rome Conference, where human-rights ngos under the cicc umbrella were the most strident pro-prosecution voices. These groups advocated loudly for broad and open-ended definitions of crimes and modes of liability—and narrow defences—so as to avoid acquittals that would risk ‘victims’ rights to justice’.

Yet far from ending the de facto impunity long enjoyed by the powerful, the icc has helped to institutionalize it. The Court’s selective and highly politicized interventions have operated to reproduce one-sided narratives of complex conflicts, demonizing some perpetrators as hostis humani generis, while legitimating military interventions in the name of humanity. The logic of ‘international criminal law’ on this model was spelled out with refreshing frankness by the former Prosecutor in a recent interview on Canada’s cbc. nato and the Court should work hand in hand, serving one another: ‘Integrate the sc, the icc, nato forces.’89 Once celebrated as an avatar of Kantian cosmopolitanism, the icc has served rather to shield and strengthen the imperial powers, less a tool of international justice than the judicial concomitant to Western intervention.

– excerpted from “Dispensing Global Justice” by Tor Krever for the New Left Review at https://newleftreview.org/II/85/tor-krever-dispensing-global-justice

Imagine a journalist in the Netherlands openly stating in an article that they think “all lawyers are a little sociopathic”… fortunately this article is written by an American feminist in America where they have real freedom of speech to freely express their views on lawyers, so unlike us censored feminists here in Europe these American feminists get to call a cat a cat and dog a dog:

My bias: I tend to assume all lawyers in positions similar to Henein’s are also a little sociopathic, driven by money and power, rather than empathy. Lawyers who are privileged enough make choices about who they defend, but choose clients based on how much they will be paid (or based on how high profile the case is), rather than based on whether their client is a woman-beater, are not people I view as particularly ethical people.

Rising to power in a male-dominated field and succeeding at treating young women in the exact same way many of one’s male colleagues would does not, alas, make one a feminist. Neither does being a “strong woman” (whatever that means). Despite mass confusion, being a feminist does not mean being more “like men.” This conveys a deep misunderstanding of what feminism is all about. Within this framework, any woman who supports war or is a proud and successful capitalist is necessarily a feminist. In fact, feminism is not about shifting around various hierarchies in order to allow women to participate in the oppression of other women. If this were the case, a female brothel owner or trafficker who did a very good job of profiting from the exploitation of marginalized women and girls would be a feminist success story. Likewise, Margaret Thatcher, who royally screwed over the poor and working class during her reign, could be considered peak feminism.

That ain’t it. Feminism is not about the ability for a few individual women to access wealth and power, at the expense of more marginalized women (or at the expense of women, as a whole).

In a Law Society of Upper Canada video from 1998, Henein explains that, in order to get a sexual assault complainant’s sexual history to be introduced at trial, one might resort simply to bringing the application, “especially in front of a judge-alone trial, to introduce all this otherwise inadmissible evidence and if it’s excluded, well, oh, well, the judge has heard it.” She then jokes, “No, no, I’m absolutely confident that the judge will be able to disabuse his or her mind of the fact that she has a very extensive and lewd prior sexual history.” In other words, Henein is advocating that lawyers play into already existing misogynist ideas about how a woman’s perceived “sluttishness” effectively renders her unrapeable or, at very least, not a credible witness. She very much wants judges in sexual assault trials to dismiss women’s accusations for incredibly sexist reasons.

Henein not only makes very considered choices to defend and protect men who hurt or exploit women and girls when she could most certainly choose not to, but, in doing so, she employs the very same techniques that misogynist men do in order to discredit victims. She relies on sexist stereotypes that say women who accuse men of assault are bitter, manipulative, liars and makes good use of the victim-blaming mentality Henein trusts the men in her field already hold. She knows how to make patriarchal institutions work in her and her clients’ favour. She fights in favour of the status quo, not against it.

http://www.feministcurrent.com/2016/04/04/marie-henein-not-a-feminist-not-a-surprise/

Moral of the story: there is no such thing as a “feminist lawyer” like MRAs like to claim. Catharine McKinnon isn’t a “feminist lawyer”, she is a lawyer who happens to be a feminist and as such is merely the extremely rare exception to the rule which is female lawyers serving male clients at the expense of women opponents. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of women going into law don’t become lawyers to pursue justice. Women become lawyers for the exact same reason that men become lawyers: to make $400 an hour like an escort. Women lawyers for the sake of their male clients will gladly hurt and humiliate women in the androcentric legal system which already discriminates against women. So, repeat after me again: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A “FEMINIST LAWYER”.

Quoting from the comments:

And of course this will spark the inevitable debate of just what rights our clothes have. Is it ethical to harvest our clothes? What sort of checks will be put in place to prevent cruelty in the euthanizing of your next pair of loafers?

Will our bio-garb be issued social security numbers? If so, will they be allowed to vote?

Good gravy, people, we need to start campaigning brainstorming right away! How will we campaign to a pair of pants to get it to vote for us in the upcoming elections?!
http://io9.gizmodo.com/387274/curator-forced-to-kill-out-of-control-bio-art-exhibit

 

This Kickstarter project concerning a short film project about a vegan who falls in love with a fur coat suddenly gains a whole new meaning…

 

On a more serious note, there was a Canadian podcast interview back in 2005 with an American animal rights attorney who argued that the emerging legal field of animal rights (institutionalized and vested within major American universities by means of generous multimillion dollar donations from American TV celebrity Bob Barker) creates a whole new set of legal problems with regards to bio-art. Indeed, the issue that was brought up by this attorney during the podcast was the idea of intellectual property rights attached to hybrid animals or stem cell growths created by artists, which applied to this particular case would bar a third party such as a curator from single-handedly terminating an out-of-control growth due to property rights, the same way your neighbor is not allowed to terminate your cat just because it’s “out of control”, ie crapping all over his backyard:

Bob Barker & Taimie Bryant: Animal Rights in the Classroom and the Courtroom, Part 1
Bob Barker & Taimie Bryant: Animal Rights in the Classroom and the Courtroom, Part 1