Tag Archives: Chelsea Resists

Legal Team Files Motion to Release Chelsea Manning

Legal Team Files Motion to Release Chelsea Manning

Alexandria, VA — Today, attorney Moira Meltzer-Cohen filed a Motion to Release Chelsea Manning, based on evidence, including an expert’s assessment of Chelsea’s personality profile, and a public condemnation of her “coercive confinement” by Nils Melzer, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 

Ms. Manning has now been incarcerated at Alexandria Detention Center for nearly a year, due to her principled refusal to testify before a federal grand jury investigating the publishers of her 2010 disclosures. She may be held for up to 18 months or until she agrees to cooperate. She is also fined $1,000 for each day she refuses to testify, those fines now total approximately $230,000.

According to Moira Meltzer-Cohen, Ms. Manning’s attorney:

“A witness who refuses to cooperate with a grand jury subpoena may be held in contempt of court, and fined or incarcerated. The only permissible purpose for sanctions under the civil contempt statute is to coerce a witness to comply with the subpoena. If compliance is impossible, either because the grand jury is no longer in existence, or because the witness is incoercible, then confinement has been transformed from a coercive into a punitive sanction, and thus is in violation of the law.”

As Ms. Manning explains: 

“My refusal to testify continues, predicated on my long standing belief that grand juries, as they function in the contemporary era, are often used by federal prosecutors to harass and disrupt political opponents and activists through secrecy, coercion, and jailing without trial. 

“My own current confinement reinforces my belief in their tendency to be abused in practice. I cannot agree to participate in such a process. No matter how much you punish me, I will remain confident in my decision. I have been separated from my loved ones, deprived of sunlight, and could not even attend my mother’s funeral. It is easier to endure these hardships now than to cooperate to win back some comfort, and live the rest of my life knowing that I acted out of self interest and not principle.” 

Today’s filing includes a personality assessment by Dr. Sara Boyd, suggesting that Ms. Manning is constitutionally incapable of acting against her conscience. “Ms. Manning exhibits long standing personality features that relate to her scrupulousness, her persistence and dedication, and her willingness to endure social disapproval as well as formal punishments,” it reads. “Ms. Manning … has not wavered in this decision-making regarding cooperation for the past [eleven] months and she did not make any statements indicating that… there was any information that could be provided to her that would change her mind.” This report provides yet more evidence that Ms. Manning will not be moved by confinement, and must therefore be released. 

Also included in the brief is a letter dated November 1, 2019, from U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer, who concludes that the practice of coercive confinement constitutes “torture” in violation of international laws ratified by the United States. S.R. Melzer recommends that Chelsea be released “without further delay” and that her fines be “cancelled or reimbursed” since they are impermissibly punitive, being “disproportionate to the gravity of any offence she may have committed.”

“The key issue before Judge Trenga is whether continued incarceration could persuade Chelsea to testify,” said Ms. Meltzer-Cohen. “Judges have complained of the ‘perversity’ of this law: that a witness may win their freedom by persisting in their contempt of court. However, should Judge Trenga agree that Chelsea will never agree to testify, he will be compelled by the law to order her release.

“The evidence overwhelmingly supports the claim we have made from the beginning: Ms. Manning cannot be pressured into betraying her principles. If her confinement is not having a coercive impact, it has exceeded its permissible scope, and Ms. Manning must be released.”

Many organizations have come out in support of Chelsea and her principled stance, including: Amnesty International, Fight for the Future, Internet Archive, Defending Rights & Dissent, Media Alliance, Oakland Privacy, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Queerious Labs, Demand Progress, RootsAction, and Lucy Parsons Labs. Likewise, many friends and family made public statements or submitted letters of support to the judge in her case, Judge Anthony Trenga, including:  Daniel Ellsberg, Michael Stipe, Thurston Moore and many others.

As of the time of this statement, a petition launched by Fight for the Future at FreeChelsea.com demanding that Chelsea be released has garnered a significant demonstration of public support, with more than 60,000 signatures

For more information, Frequently Asked Questions, Legal Precedents, and a complete archive of statements from Chelsea, including her letter to Judge Anthony Trenga explaining the history of Grand juries and her objections to them, see the new website at ReleaseChelsea.com.

A Note to Editors


Chelsea Manning is represented by Moira Meltzer-Cohen, appellate attorney Vincent Ward, and local counsel Chris Leibig and Sandra Freeman.

Resources:

Motion to Release Chelsea Manning https://www.releasechelsea.com/resources/legal_documents/motion_to_release

More than 60,000 people call for judge to release Chelsea Manning, Press Release  https://tumblr.fightforthefuture.org/post/190901492383/more-than-60000-people-call-for-judge-to-release

What’s the difference between coercive and punitive incarceration? https://www.releasechelsea.com/faq/b/

How does a judge determine whether a witness is incoercible?  https://www.releasechelsea.com/faq/c/

What factors are used by the judge to make an “individualized determination” regarding the intransigence of the witness? https://www.releasechelsea.com/faq/d/

How have grand juries and contempt sanctions been used or abused in the past? https://www.releasechelsea.com/faq/g/

Chelsea Manning Responds to United Nations Rapporteur’s Call For Her Release – UN Special Rapporteur on Torture: Release Chelsea Manning immediately, January 2, 2020 https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2020/01/chelsea-manning-responds-to-united-nations-rapporteurs-call-for-her-release/

Letter to the US Government: Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, by Nils Melzer, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, November 1, 2019
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=24925

Executive Summary: Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Release, by Kelly Wright (Motion filed May 6, 2019) https://www.releasechelsea.com/resources/executive-summary/

Organizations Supporting Chelsea Manning https://www.releasechelsea.com/organizations_supporting_chelsea/

Individuals Supporting Chelsea Manning  https://www.releasechelsea.com/individuals_supporting_chelsea

Chelsea Manning

Chelsea Manning Responds to United Nations Rapporteur’s Call For Her Release


UN Special Rapporteur on Torture: Release Chelsea Manning immediately

Alexandria, VA — This week Nils Melzer, the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment published a letter to the U.S. government dated November 1, 2019, condemning the incarceration of Chelsea Manning, calling such coercive confinement “torture” in violation of international law, and recommending her immediate release. He also recommends that any disproportionate fines levied against her be cancelled. The letter was made public following a customary 60-day window pending any government response.

Said S.R. Melzer:

“…I recommend that Ms. Manning’s current deprivation of liberty be promptly reviewed in light of the United States’ international human rights obligations. Should my assessment regarding its purely coercive purpose be accurate, I recommend that Ms. Manning be released without further delay, and that any fines disproportionate to the gravity of any offence she may have committed be cancelled or reimbursed.”

The letter was announced by Melzer via Twitter late December 30, 2019, stating:

“…the continued detention of @xychelsea is not a lawful sanction but an open-ended, progressively severe coercive measure amounting to torture & should be discontinued & abolished without delay”

In the letter, Melzer also condemns the United States’ practice of what he considers to be “prolonged coercive confinement” which “involves the intentional infliction of progressively severe mental and emotional suffering for the purposes of coercion and intimidation at the order of judicial authorities.” He added that “victims of prolonged coercive confinement have demonstrated post-traumatic symptoms and other severe and persistent mental and physical health consequences.” 

According to Ms. Manning:

“My long-standing objection to the immoral practice of throwing people in jail without charge or trial, for the sole purpose of forcing them to testify before a secret, government-run investigative panel, remains strong. 

“Nearly every other legal system in the world condemns coercive confinement, and long ago replaced secret grand juries with public hearings. I am thrilled to see the practice of coercive confinement called out for what it is: incompatible with international human rights standards. Regardless, even knowing I am very likely to stay in jail for an even longer time, I’m never backing down.” 

Moira Meltzer-Cohen, Manning’s attorney, said:

“Special Rapporteur Melzer has issued a legally rigorous condemnation of the practice of coercive confinement, and of Ms. Manning’s confinement in particular. While the United States has so far failed to live up to its human rights obligations, I remain hopeful that the government will reconsider its policies in light of the UN’s admonition. 

“In any case, there can be no further doubt that Ms. Manning has the courage of her convictions, and will never agree to testify before a grand jury, even at great personal cost. As S.R. Melzer notes, since her confinement is not having the intended coercive effect, she must be released.” 

Although S.R. Melzer has requested a clarifying response from the United States, he makes clear his settled conclusion that the practice of coercive confinement violates international human rights law, and recommends Ms. Manning’s immediate release pending any response or investigation. In the two months since the letter was conveyed to the United States, Ms. Manning has remained confined, and the daily fines imposed upon her have continued to accrue.

 
A Note to Editors



1. Definition of “torture” — as outlined in Article one of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), as described by S.R. Nils Melzer in his letter

“torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity, it does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions”.

(Note: Melzer clarifies, in the letter, on page 2, that he does not think such practices fall under CAT’s “lawful sanctions” exception.

2. List of international human rights laws that the U.S. practice of coercive confinement is in violation of, as described by S.R. Nils Melzer in his letter:

  • Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) (Articles 1, 2, 15 and 16)

  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); ratified by the United States of America in 1994 and 1992 respectively (Articles 2, 7 and 9)

  • Human Rights Council Resolution 16/23

  • Human Rights Council Resolution 34/19

  • Human Rights Council Resolution 25/13

  • General Assembly Resolution 68/156

Judge Says Chelsea Manning Can Pay Fines, Despite Evidence to the Contrary

Judge Says Chelsea Manning Can Pay Fines, Despite Evidence to the Contrary


Chelsea will Remain Confined Another Year and will Face Ongoing Financial Hardship

Alexandria, VA — On Monday, August 5, 2019, Judge Anthony Trenga denied Chelsea Manning’s Motion to Reconsider Sanctions imposed after he found her in civil contempt of court for her refusal to give grand jury testimony relating to her 2010 disclosures of classified information. 

While the judge has authority to sanction Ms. Manning in an effort to convince her to comply with his order to testify before the grand jury, he does not have the authority to impose sanctions for punitive purposes. In her motion, Ms. Manning argued that the sanctions, including both incarceration and steep daily fines, will never coerce her compliance with the Court’s order, and therefore impermissibly serve only a punitive function. 

The Judge denied her motion without holding a hearing on the matter, although both parties had consented to and anticipated an opportunity to present further evidence and argument. In a footnote, Judge Trenga explained his unexpected decision by saying “The Court […] finds, based upon the nature and volume of documents proffered, that a hearing would not aid the decision process and therefore decides the Motion without a hearing.”

“…Ms. Manning has proffered a substantial number of financial records documenting her assets, liabilities, and current and future earnings,” the Judge wrote. “The Court has reviewed these records and concludes […] that Ms. Manning has the ability to comply with the Court’s financial sanctions or will have the ability after her release from confinement. Therefore, the imposed fines of $500 per day after 30 days and $1,000 per day after 60 days is not so excessive as to relieve her of those sanctions or to constitute punishment rather than a coercive measure.”

The Judge has “almost unreviewable discretion” to interpret evidence, such as Chelsea’s financial records, and to impose —or revoke— sanctions. Thus, despite the fact that Chelsea is currently deeply in debt, and can not work while incarcerated, Judge Trenga was able to conclude that fines totalling $441,000 fall within the parameters of a ‘coercive’ sanction, and do not intrude into the forbidden realm of the punitive. He also stated his belief that continued confinement may yet exert a coercive impact upon Ms. Manning, and asserted that he retains the authority to keep her confined while simultaneously imposing daily fines, a point of law vigorously disputed by Ms. Manning’s lawyers.

When informed of the judge’s decision Chelsea said, “I am disappointed but not at all surprised. The government and the judge must know by now that this doesn’t change my position one bit.”

Chelsea will remain confined for another year, and will face ongoing financial hardship, unless Judge Trenga or a higher court are convinced of what Ms. Manning has always publicly maintained: that the sanctions imposed will never coerce her compliance and are therefore entirely punitive.

Past Developments


1. May 31, 2019 – Chelsea Manning’s Legal Team Files Motion to Reconsider Sanctions: https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/05/chelsea-mannings-lawyers-file-motion-to-reconsider-sanctions/

2. May 23, 2019  – Statement from Chelsea Manning and Her Lawyer Regarding Today’s Superseding Indictment: https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/05/statement-from-chelsea-manning-her-lawyer-regarding-todays-superseding-indictment/

3. May 16, 2019 – Statement from Chelsea Manning’s Legal Team Regarding Today’s Grand Jury Hearing: https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/05/statement-from-chelsea-mannings-legal-team/

4. May 12, 2019 – Chelsea on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” with Brian Stelter: https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/05/12/chelsea-manning-speaks-out-after-two-months-in-jail.cnn/video/playlists/reliable-sources-highlights/

5. May 10, 2019 – Chelsea’s video statement (with full transcription): https://youtu.be/TDZGRRk4Mn

6. May 9, 2019 – Statements from Chelsea and her legal team: Chelsea Manning Released from Alexandria Detention Center After Grand Jury Lapses: https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/05/chelsea-manning-released-from-alexandria-detention-center/

7. May 6, 2019 – Chelsea Manning and her Attorneys File Motion Declaring She will Never Cooperate with Grand Jury: https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/05/chelsea-manning-and-attorneys-file-motion-declaring-she-will-never-be-convinced-to-cooperate-with-the-grand-jury/

8. April 22, 2019 – Chelsea Manning and Her Attorneys Respond to 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Contempt and Continuing Her Detention: https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/04/chelsea-manning-and-her-attorneys-respond-to-4th-circuit-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-contempt-and-continuing-her-detention/

10. April 1, 2019 – Chelsea Manning’s Lawyers Ask Court to Release Her, Pending Appeal, Citing Abuse of District Court Discretion: https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/04/chelsea-mannings-lawyers-ask-fourth-circuit-to-release-her-pending-appeal/

11. March 29, 2019 – Lawyers for Chelsea Manning Ask Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to Void Charges of Civil Contempt: https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/03/chelsea-manning-grand-jury-appeal/

12. March 23, 2019 – Lawyers and Supporters Condemn Chelsea Manning’s Ongoing Detention Under Solitary Confinement Conditions: https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/03/lawyers-and-supporters-condemn-chelsea-mannings-ongoing-detention-under-solitary-confinement-conditions/

13. March 8, 2019 – Chelsea Manning’s Support Committee: Manning’s Detention for Refusal to Provide Grand Jury Testimony is Pointless, Punitive, and Cruel: http://www.balestramedia.com/chelsea-press-releases/2019/3/8/chelsea-mannings-support-committee-mannings-detention-for-refusal-to-provide-grand-jury-testimony-is-pointless-punitive-and-cruel

14. March 6, 2019 – Statement from Chelsea Manning Regarding Grand Jury and Consequences Associated with Her Refusal: https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/03/statement-from-chelsea-manning-regarding-grand-jury-and-consequences-associated-with-her-refusal/

15. March 5, 2019 – Chelsea Manning Continues to Challenge Grand Jury Subpoena, Motion to Quash Denied, Remains Under Seal: http://www.balestramedia.com/chelsea-press-releases/2019/3/8/chelsea-manning-continues-to-challenge-grand-jury-subpoena-motion-to-quash-denied-remains-under-seal

Lawyers Say Chelsea Manning Lacks Financial Capacity to Pay Fines

Lawyers Say Chelsea Manning Lacks Financial Capacity to Pay Fines

Alexandria, VA — In a reply brief to be filed later today, Chelsea Manning will propose guidelines for a hearing to assess her financial capacity before Judge Anthony Trenga, who, just over a month ago, ordered her to pay fines that could total up to nearly half a million dollars. These fines were imposed in addition to her incarceration.

While the government has alleged that she has access to resources that would enable her to pay these fines, that perception is simply wrong, say Chelsea and her lawyers. Although prior to her recent confinement, Ms. Manning was able to earn a living from public speaking, she is not a wealthy person, her team says. Records show she was forced to lay off the individual employed by her small business after her incarceration in March, 2019. She has no personal savings, an uncertain speaking career that has been abruptly halted by her incarceration, and is moving her few belongings into storage, as she can no longer afford to pay her rent.

Chelsea — who made exhaustive financial disclosures to the public during her 2018 run for the U.S. Senate — requested an opportunity to share her records with the Court shortly after the imposition of the fines. She will produce documents demonstrating that her current debt and compromised earning capacity have left her balance sheets near zero:


The government, and maybe the general public, think that I have access to resources just because I am a public figure but that’s just not true. Making money has never been my priority.

I do the work I do for the same reason I do everything: because I want to make a difference. Now, my work has been totally interrupted by my incarceration. I definitely feel the costs of these sanctions, but I never expected to have a comfortable life, and I would rather be in debt forever than betray my principles.”

Chelsea E. Manning

Ms. Manning and her legal team argue that, as it stands, the fines imposed are so much greater than her current and potential net worth that she will not be able to pay them in full. Moreover, while corporations are routinely financially sanctioned, it is unheard of for an individual to be hit with such heavy fines, particularly where the underlying matter involves no financial misconduct. For all of these reasons, her lawyers argue, the fines should either be reduced or vacated altogether.  

Furthermore, they argue, Chelsea will sooner bankrupt herself trying to pay these exorbitant fines than cooperate with the grand jury; since these fines will never coerce her cooperation, they are impermissibly punitive. Finally, they ask Judge Trenga to acknowledge that the jail sanction has definitively failed to coerce Chelsea, transforming any further confinement into an illegitimate punishment, rather than a civil sanction.


Past Developments


1. May 31, 2019: Chelsea Manning’s Legal Team Files Motion to Reconsider Sanctions https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/05/chelsea-mannings-lawyers-file-motion-to-reconsider-sanctions/

2. May 23, 2019: Statement from Chelsea Manning and Her Lawyer Regarding Today’s Superseding Indictment https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/05/statement-from-chelsea-manning-her-lawyer-regarding-todays-superseding-indictment/

3. May 16, 2019 – Statement from Chelsea Manning’s Legal Team Regarding Today’s Grand Jury Hearing: https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/05/statement-from-chelsea-mannings-legal-team/

4. May 12, 2019 – Chelsea on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” with Brian Stelter: https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/05/12/chelsea-manning-speaks-out-after-two-months-in-jail.cnn/video/playlists/reliable-sources-highlights

5. May 10, 2019– Chelsea’s video statement (with full transcription): https://youtu.be/TDZGRRk4Mn

6. May 9, 2019 – Statements from Chelsea and her legal team: Chelsea Manning Released from Alexandria Detention Center After Grand Jury Lapses: https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/05/chelsea-manning-released-from-alexandria-detention-center/

7. May 6, 2019 – Chelsea Manning and her Attorneys File Motion Declaring She will Never Cooperate with Grand Jury: https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/05/chelsea-manning-and-attorneys-file-motion-declaring-she-will-never-be-convinced-to-cooperate-with-the-grand-jury/

8. April 22, 2019 – Chelsea Manning and Her Attorneys Respond to 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Contempt and Continuing Her Detention: https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/04/chelsea-manning-and-her-attorneys-respond-to-4th-circuit-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-contempt-and-continuing-her-detention/

9.  April 1, 2019 – Chelsea Manning’s Lawyers Ask Court to Release Her, Pending Appeal, Citing Abuse of District Court Discretion: https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/04/chelsea-mannings-lawyers-ask-fourth-circuit-to-release-her-pending-appeal/

10.  March 29, 2019 – Lawyers for Chelsea Manning Ask Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to Void Charges of Civil Contempt: https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/03/chelsea-manning-grand-jury-appeal/

11. March 23, 2019 – Lawyers and Supporters Condemn Chelsea Manning’s Ongoing Detention Under Solitary Confinement Conditions: https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/03/lawyers-and-supporters-condemn-chelsea-mannings-ongoing-detention-under-solitary-confinement-conditions/

12.  March 8, 2019 – Chelsea Manning’s Support Committee: Manning’s Detention for Refusal to Provide Grand Jury Testimony is Pointless, Punitive, and Cruel: http://www.balestramedia.com/chelsea-press-releases/2019/3/8/chelsea-mannings-support-committee-mannings-detention-for-refusal-to-provide-grand-jury-testimony-is-pointless-punitive-and-cruel

13. March 6, 2019 – Statement from Chelsea Manning Regarding Grand Jury and Consequences Associated with Her Refusal: https://www.sparrowmedia.net/2019/03/statement-from-chelsea-manning-regarding-grand-jury-and-consequences-associated-with-her-refusal/

14. March 5, 2019 – Chelsea Manning Continues to Challenge Grand Jury Subpoena, Motion to Quash Denied, Remains Under Seal: http://www.balestramedia.com/chelsea-press-releases/2019/3/8/chelsea-manning-continues-to-challenge-grand-jury-subpoena-motion-to-quash-denied-remains-under-seal

Chelsea Manning’s Legal Team Files Motion to Reconsider Sanctions

Chelsea Manning’s Legal Team Files Motion to Reconsider Sanctions

Alexandria, VA — Today, Chelsea Manning and her legal team filed a Motion to Reconsider Sanctions, in which they ask Judge Anthony Trenga to release Chelsea from confinement, and ask that he modify the fines he imposed on her.

During the May 16th contempt hearing, Judge Trenga found Ms. Manning in contempt of court and ordered her confined for the term of the grand jury. Judge Trenga also imposed graduated fines to be assessed at $500 per day starting after 30 days of confinement, and jumping to $1,000 per day after 60 days, for as long as she refuses to comply with the court’s order to answer questions before the grand jury.

During that same hearing, Judge Trenga prevailed upon Ms. Manning to use her confinement as an opportunity to reflect on her principles and objections to the grand jury process. A letter from Chelsea filed with the court today represents her efforts to communicate those principles and objections clearly and completely to the judge, and to show him that she has in fact reflected on her convictions sincerely and at length.

Judge Trenga is asked to consider five important arguments in today’s court filing:

  1. A renewal of Ms. Manning’s motion for release, on the basis that she cannot be coerced, and that her incarceration is therefore only punitive. A sanction that serves only to punish her would convert what is intended as a civil coercive sanction into a criminal punishment, in violation of her 5th Amendment rights to due process.

  2. The government has now successfully obtained not one, but two indictments, without the benefit of or need for Chelsea’s testimony. Furthermore, as the government’s sixty-day window to add further charges prior to the submission of their extradition request is nearly over, the legitimacy of its purported need for Chelsea’s evidence is increasingly doubtful.

  3. The court may impose civil fines in order to coerce compliance with a court order – but not to punish disobedience with a court order. Coercive fines, however, are usually only applied to corporations, which cannot be jailed. Furthermore, such fines may not be imposed without the court confirming that the fines will not be excessive or punitive. This requires the judge to carefully examine the witness’s financial capacity, which was not done in this case.

  4. In the unusual event that fines are imposed on individuals, it is where the underlying contempt involves a refusal to comply with a court order about the management of large sums of money. There are no such facts in Chelsea’s case, and her lawyers believe that imposing any fine may be presumed to be definitionally punitive, rather than coercive.

  5. Although both fines and confinement are within the traditional contempt powers of the court, past cases suggest that these may be used one at a time, or one after the other, but a court should not impose both at once.

The government and Chelsea’s legal team are in agreement that witnesses held in civil contempt may be held for no more than 18 months total, even for contempts occurring before different grand juries. As a result, on May 29, 2019, the government joined Ms. Manning’s counsel in asking Judge Trenga to give her 62 days “time served” and to modify his order of confinement to the term of this grand jury minus the 62 days she already spent in confinement (for contempt before a previous grand jury proceeding).