Culture

The Department of Justice has announced a guilty plea from Henry Frese:

• An employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) pleaded guilty today to charges related to his disclosure of classified national defense information (NDI) to two journalists in 2018 and 2019.
• “Frese violated the trust placed in him by the American people when he disclosed sensitive national security information for personal gain,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers. “He alerted our country’s adversaries to sensitive national defense information, putting the nation’s security at risk.  The government takes these breaches seriously and will use all the resources at our disposal to apprehend and prosecute those who jeopardize the safety of this country and its citizens.”

The legal documents are here:

Guilty Plea

Statement of Facts

The Third Annual A Night for Freedom returns on Washington D.C. on February 29, 2020.

• Get tickets here.

It might even be our Fourth Annual event if you count Jeff Giesea’s and my Bull Moose Party in 2017. (We also threw the biggest Inauguration event in 2017, but whose counting.)

Anyhow……

We are changing up the 3rd Annual A Night for Freedom in some ways that are designed to give you a better time.

Last year we had two rooms available in the space we rented (we’ll be in a different venue this time) – one room with food and drinks, and the other with speakers.

The speaking events next door were less attended than the party atmosphere, it got a little loud in the other room making it hard to hear the speakers, so we are focusing a bit more on the food / beverage aspect of ANFF.

We will also have DJ / music.

Basically we’re going to have more and better food, and fewer if any speakers at the evening event.

General Admission – Doors open at 8:30 p.m. Passed appetizers from 9 to 10 p.m. Ticket includes 3 drinks and passed appetizers.

VIP – Doors open at 4:00 p.m. You’ll enjoy a gourmet dinner with VIP guests and an open bar.

• We will be having a living podcast recording plus open Q&A.

Sponsor – Same as VIP, with an additional brunch the next morning.

Get tickets here.

The jury forewoman in the Roger Stone case said the following under oath: “So I recall just hearing about [Roger Stone] being part of the campaign and some belief or reporting around interaction with the Russian probe and interaction with him and people in the country, but I don’t have a whole lot of details. I don’t pay that close attention or watch C-SPAN.”

A review of the jury forewoman’s social media account directly contradicts her sworn testimony:

ROGER STONE JUROR: “I don’t pay that close attention” to political developments in the news

ALSO ROGER STONE JUROR: I watch Meet the Press *re*-runs and CNN in the airport*

*(Not even Chuck Todd and Brian Stelter do that) pic.twitter.com/bYJSIjumy7

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) February 13, 2020

During Jury Selection all jurors were asked this question:

Question 23 on the Jury Questionnaire asked:

• “Have you written or posted anything for public consumption about the defendant, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election, or the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller? [For purposes of this question, writing ‘for public consumption’ includes blog posts, articles, or posts on internet sites that are available to the general public.]”

Juror Tameka Hart had posted dozens of times about the Special Counsel investigation into Trump and other related matters.

Juror Tameka Hart posted about the defendant Roger Stone himself.

After the pre-dawn raid on Roger Stone, where FBI SWAT team members showed up to Roger Stone’s home, many questioned why this force was used.

Juror Tameka Hart had this to say about the raid on Roger Stone.

What did the juror answer on this questionnaire? 

On that Roger Stone juror –

Of the utmost importance will be her responses to these juror questions on:

(1) Social media and the Mueller investigation

(2) Running for office

If she answered in the negative… things will get interesting.

kudos @Cernovich pic.twitter.com/xoHBwkTmaZ

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) February 13, 2020

We will have more developments on this story soon!

Read our prior reporting on the Roger Stone jury here.

Who is Mike Cernovich?

Rumors regarding the make-up of the jury that voted to convict Roger Stone floated around, but no reporter would publicly identify the juror. One juror has revealed herself in a CNN story:

(CNN) A juror on the Roger Stone trial said she wants to “stand up” for the four prosecutors who withdrew from the case in response to their sentencing recommendation being changed by Department of Justice leadership.

Tomeka Hart said she had remained silent about the case for months out of concern for her safety and “politicizing the matter.”

Tomeka Hart has an active social media profile.

https://twitter.com/hartformemphis/status/1109835485516570625

Here are some of her Tweets about Trump and those close to Trump

There are dozens of posts expressing hatred for Trump, which is her right as a citizen.

But how did she get on a jury involving Trump’s longtime close friend?

https://twitter.com/hartformemphis/status/896883626150940673

How did a federal court judge ever allow a far left wing activist to sit on a case where a close Trump associate faced trial?

This juror also had political aspirations.

FWIW, the juror is also a former Democratic congressional candidate in Tennessee https://t.co/G4i9bnSklQ

— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) February 13, 2020

The Roger Stone prosecution is a disgrace, it’s lawless, and it was rigged from the beginning.

Roger Stone was convicted on November 15, 2019.

Here is the Tweet from one of the jurors who voted to convict Roger Stone, from the same day. pic.twitter.com/p54zkoMDCB

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) February 13, 2020

• About the author: Mike Cernovich is a journalist, author, and filmmaker. Read more about him here.

Who is Mike Cernovich?

Patreon has lost several high profile creators including Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, and Jordan Peterson due to Patreon’s decision to begin censoring creators for ideological reasons.

The belief is that Patreon can ban anyone they want to. Is this true under California law?

“Private companies can do whatever they want,” is an old canard repeated by people who aren’t lawyers or aren’t very good lawyers. But a new legal remedy is available under California’s arbitration law, especially with the adoption of SB-707.

There’s an economic relationship between Creators and their Backers.

Patreon, by banning a Creator, disrupts the economic relationship between Creator and Backer. In legal terms this is called tortious interference with a business relationship.

Backers can demand to have the disruption of this relationship sent to arbitration.

Patreon, under California law, must pay the arbitration fees in advance. These fees can be upward of $10,000 per case.

If 500 backers demanded arbitration, Patreon would need to put up five million dollars in advance in filing fees alone. Legal fees will ramp those fees up by a factor of ten.

And judges are enforcing the law strictly:

DoorDash Ordered to Pay $9.5M to Arbitrate 5,000 Labor Disputes:

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Rejecting claims that the legal process it forced on workers is unfair, a federal judge Monday ordered food-delivery service DoorDash to pay $9.5 million in arbitration fees for 5,010 delivery drivers’ labor demands against the company.

“You’re going to pay that money,” U.S. District Judge William Alsup said in court. “You don’t want to pay millions of dollars, but that’s what you bargained to do and you’re going to do it.”

Patreon has tried writing itself out of this legal requirement with amended Terms of Service, which took effect on January 3, 2020:

You may not bring a claim against us for suspending or terminating another person’s account, and you agree you will not bring such a claim. If you try to bring such a claim, you are responsible for the damages caused, including attorneys fees and costs.

This provision is unlawful and unenforceable, because Patreon demands all users abide by JAMS Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures:

If a dispute does arise out of these terms or related to your use of Patreon, and it cannot be resolved after you talk with us, then it must be resolved by arbitration. This arbitration must be administered by JAMS under the JAMS Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures, except as expressly provided below. Judgment on the arbitration entered in any court with jurisdiction. Arbitrations may only take place on an individual basis. No class arbitrations or other other grouping of parties is allowed. By agreeing to these terms you are waiving your right to trial by jury or to participate in a class action or representative proceeding; we are also waiving these rights.

Under California law, a consumer cannot be forced to pay costs and fees under a mandatory arbitration clause. California law is clear:

For matters involving consumers, the consumer is only required to pay $250. See JAMS Policy on Consumer Arbitrations Pursuant to Pre-Dispute Clauses. For matters based on a clause or agreement that is required as a condition of employment, the employee is only required to pay $400. See JAMS Policy on Employment Arbitrations, Minimum Standards of Fairness.

In other words, if Patreon bans a Creator, and the Backers want to file arbitration claims, Patreon will have to be millions of dollars of fees.

As one law firm specialization in arbitration law notes:

SB 707 applies to employment or consumer arbitration agreements and requires that the drafting party pay any fees and costs that might be due before the arbitration can proceed within 30 days after the due date. The failure by the drafting party to pay will mean that the drafting party is in material breach of the arbitration agreement, is in default of the arbitration and will waive its right to compel arbitration

There is no exception to this law, and Patreon cannot draft its way out of California law with a Terms of Service update. Again, California law provides:

With respect to the cost of the arbitration, when a consumer initiates arbitration against the company, the only fee required to be paid by the consumer is $250, which is approximately equivalent to current Court filing fees. All other costs must be borne by the company, including any remaining JAMS Case Management Fee and all professional fees for the arbitrator’s services. When the company is the claiming party initiating an arbitration against the consumer, the company will be required to pay all costs associated with the arbitration.

Patreon may win on the grounds that its Terms of Service as of January 2020 apply to all creators banned in 2020 or beyond. It’s unlikely they will, because courts look unfavorably on parties who demand arbitration while seeking to opt-out of rules they don’t like.

My best guess is that if a Creator or Backer sued Patreon to have the fee-shifting provision struck from the Terms of Service, then that party would prevail.

Any Patreon creator banned before 2020 will have favorable procedural rules, and Backers bringing claims will not be required to pay more than $250.

The same rules would also apply to PayPal and other companies with mandatory arbitration provisions.