Live data from Hacker News

Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

freedom.press

21–30 of 175 posts

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#21

I find it very disturbing that you need tens of thousands of dollars at your disposal to get a "fair" trial. I say "fair", because the output obviously changes with the amount of money you feed the system. Too little money and the outcome will be biased against you, too much money and the outcome will be biased in the other direction. Which amount will give an unbiased output? $50k? $100k? How can this be considered…

> How can this be considered normal?

It's not acceptable, but nobody has any better ideas.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#22
post #19
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put food on the table? Are you for real? Lawyers who work at the law firms that have expertise to represent Chelsea Manning are probably in 0.1% of top earners worldwide. If they can't work pro bono, who can?

I was going to quote an article about how the wealthy 0.1% is a different demographic than the top 1% because the rest of the top one percent are workers for the top 0.1%. However, I guess these top one percent US people would be 0.1% worldwide.

A person with $200 000 yearly income (a very conservative assumption for top lawyers) is in top %0.04 richest people by income.[0]

Yeah, right, they have to "put food" on the table.

[0] http://www.globalrichlist.com

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#23
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah well the lawyers in question will probably look like shit if they lose so they want money so it's not a complete loss. Horrible but probably true.

I don't know about you but I don't work for free, even for the noblest of causes, unless I can put food on the table (eg, the lawyers need to eat).

That depends. Not everyone needs to work for money. There are also people who set aside certain amount of hours per week for pro bono work. Not everything has to be about money all the time.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about you but I don't work for free, even for the noblest of causes, unless I can put food on the table (eg, the lawyers need to eat).

That's a bit of a false dichotomy though, isn't it? In the same way that lots of tech firms release some open-source code (in some cases, quite a lot!), legal firms often do a fair bit of pro-bono work. Releasing stuff/providing legal services for free doesn't mean you can't eat!

Lawyers charge a lot per hour but also have large overheads, especially trial lawyers. The amounts mentioned in the fundraising page seem small. I am guessing Chelsea Manning already gets a discount and that they will have to raise much more later on.

A high profile criminal case such as the one against Chelsea Manning where the government throws in many man-years will only be successful if the defense also throws in a team of competent defense attorneys, researchers, assistants etc. In a huge case like this that stretches over several years and where there is vast information to deal with, this could amount to decades of man-years.

A one man boutiques usually can't handle such cases and the largest law firms typically don't take such cases. So the defendant often has to pick among law firms with 5-20 lawyers.

Such small firms usually cannot afford to allocate that much manpower to pro bono cases.

But even if they could afford it, there are numerous faster and cheaper options for marketing. As for professional satisfaction, there are plenty of cases that provide that and pays a salary meanwhile.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#27
post #22
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to quote an article about how the wealthy 0.1% is a different demographic than the top 1% because the rest of the top one percent are workers for the top 0.1%. However, I guess these top one percent US people would be 0.1% worldwide.

A person with $200 000 yearly income (a very conservative assumption for top lawyers) is in top %0.04 richest people by income.[0] Yeah, right, they have to "put food" on the table. [0] http://www.globalrichlist.com

Rich people don't just swim in money you know. It's fairly likely they'll have far more expenses than poor people. So they might have a better pension plan, pay a gardener. Might send their kids to private school. etc etc

So someone earning $200k could well be less well off after expenses than someone earning $50k.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#28

I find it very disturbing that you need tens of thousands of dollars at your disposal to get a "fair" trial. I say "fair", because the output obviously changes with the amount of money you feed the system. Too little money and the outcome will be biased against you, too much money and the outcome will be biased in the other direction. Which amount will give an unbiased output? $50k? $100k? How can this be considered…

> How can this be considered normal? It's not acceptable, but nobody has any better ideas.

Socialized legal defense? Government funded legal defense, with a private choice of the law firm to reduce pro-government biasses. Similar to how certain socialized healthcare systems work.

Of course, there are some glaring issues here, such as the fact that unfortunately there's a strong correlation between socio-economic status and the odds of you needing legal counsel... Something which also occurs in healthcare but to a much lesser degree I'm inclined to believe.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#29
post #3

So in other words, there is not a single law firm in US which will take on Chelsea Manning's crucial cause without eyeing for money? That's why she's resorting to ask for donations? Is that even possible?

The lawyers may very well not take any money but that's not what you need the money for.

For a case like this with 100,000's of documents tons of witnesses and experts you need more money just for the discovery phase that any non-tv law firm will be able to put out.

The defense also needs to be able to bring their own experts which in this case might be psychologists, social liberty experts, computer security and forensic experts, anti-terror and national defense experts and more, all of those cost money and a lot of it even if they are willing to come out and testify at cost.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#30
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A person with $200 000 yearly income (a very conservative assumption for top lawyers) is in top %0.04 richest people by income.[0] Yeah, right, they have to "put food" on the table. [0] http://www.globalrichlist.com

Rich people don't just swim in money you know. It's fairly likely they'll have far more expenses than poor people. So they might have a better pension plan, pay a gardener. Might send their kids to private school. etc etc So someone earning $200k could well be less well off after expenses than someone earning $50k.

Except that their kids have better chances in life, their retirement is secure, they have a nice garden to relax in etc etc...

Money well spent if you ask me.

Post reply on HN