[Marxism] Defensive formulations

[Brian Shannon <Brian_Shannon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

This should be among the strategies that revolutionists use whenever
the government wishes to use statements against them.

(1)
My name is neither Leon, Karl, Rosa, or Mohammed and I didn't write any
of the documents that you found in my apartment, which was shared with
several others and had previous tenants before me.

(2)
I do live, however, live in X city, and I have gone to the library
there and there are, or were before certain people removed them, books
written by and about the above.

(3)
I have attended meetings that included people that you say were at one
time identified as members of political organizations that you don't
like. All of them had talks or forums and discussions. I went as an
individual with my own thoughts and left the same way. I don't now
recall what those thoughts were, but they were not the ones that you
think. In fact, even thoughts that might have been similar and that I
have written have meant different things and different times and in
different context.

(4)
I have said that I was a member of X organization. However, that was at
that particular moment in time. Immediately before and after I may have
or may not have been.

(5)
I cannot say what I would do in a specific period of time in the future
regarding the government of the United States or any revolt or struggle
against said government. In general, I am in political opposition to
the capitalist government. I cannot be more specific than that under my
own understanding of the political process and the advice of my
counsel, Attorney John Roberts.

Brian Shannon

______________


http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1123751111126

Roberts Advocated Noncommittal Stance on Specific Cases in Advising
O'Connor
Jesse J. Holland, The Associated Press, 08-12-2005

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts advised then-high court nominee
Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981 to stand firm in her insistence not to talk
about specific court cases like Roe v. Wade, saying it could bring up
impropriety and possibly disqualification issues later.

In documents released by the National Archives Thursday, Roberts --
then special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith and
assigned to help O'Connor through her confirmation process -- wrote
O'Connor to rebut a university professor's memo.

The memo argued that senators can only determine a nominee's views
through asking specific questions about specific cases. Answering those
questions would not put a justice in danger of having to be
disqualified from hearing future cases on that subject if it was made
clear that the nominee was not promising to vote one way or the other,
the memo said.

That theory should be rejected, Roberts said.

"The suggestion that a simple understanding that no promise is intended
when a nominee answers a specific question will completely remove the
disqualification question is absurd," Roberts wrote to O'Connor in a
Sept. 9 letter. "The appearance of impropriety still remains."

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism