From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 93 19:47:47 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: (1) PRZ excluded (2) PM vs. LD (3) grand jury procedure
Message-ID: <9309220241.AA11556@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I was thinking. What is the significance that PRZ was not actually
cited in any subpoena so far? This is very puzzling. It seems to
contradict the theory that the investigation is primarily PGP oriented.
On one hand, we might attribute it to the idea that the grand jury &
the Attorneys don't have a very clear idea of what exactly is going on
with PGP anyway, which would fit in with some of the tidbits I've
posted. The president of ViaCrypt *was* subpoenaed -- but he has only
been in associated with PGP for a few weeks, since the commercial
announcement. But, still, how could they *not* query PRZ if they are
inquiring on PGP?  This is what I call a `conspicuous omission'.

Also, the targeting of ViaCrypt and not PRZ directly is very
interesting to contemplate. It definitely suggests that the move of PGP
to a commercial company was critical in the timing of the subpoenas.
Was it critical in convening a grand jury in the first place? what is
it about the situation that caused action after a company was involved?
are relevant laws only applicable to companies, not individuals? surely
not, but there is very likely something going on here beneath the surface.

(BTW, let the record show I have only replied directly to PM's
voluminous onslaught of public flames [to say nothing of my vast,
superb private collection] in one message on the list, which I think is
sufficient [or more precisely, nothing could be sufficient, but it is
the minimum]. If there is any `bickering' going on beyond this, it is
only the reader's fertile imagination that I was *engaged* [*targeted*?
definitely]. Or, feel free to cite the messages to contradict me, in
email. I say all this only because I fear I am becoming a symbol in
everyone's psyche of any message that challenges PM, no matter who
wrote it, quite to the contrary of actual developments.)

Here's a bit more which is helpful in describing a grand jury
investigation (although I'd like to see more) from someone who gives me
too much credit :)

===cut=here===

Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 11:49:33 -0400
From: [...]
To: ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu
Subject: Re:  more musings

You are absolutely right about the Grand Jury proceedings. They are simply
a fact finding venture. They are secret hearings and I doubt that Phil
Zimmerman will even be able to talk about the proceedings after they are done. 

In addition to this, you are also correct that attorneys are not permitted
inside the grand jury hearing (although the witness may leave the room to
confer with the attorney). Once inside the room, you will only have the Grand
Jury (of 23 people I believe) and the D.A. While it may seem nice to believe
that Phil Zimmerman will be able to make a grand Perry Mason like speech in
front of the Grand Jury. In reality, he will be under the control of the
D.A. and will probably not have much of a chance to say much of anything
except to answer the questions of the D.A.

On the last point, yes you are also right, since the Grand Jury is NOT a 
criminal trial. Any evidence that would normally be held as illegally obtained,
or just generally inadmissable in court (ie. hearsay) is perfectly acceptable
for a Grand Jury, and I'm sure that it will be used.

The grand jury's only purpose is to pass either an indictment (called a True
Bill ) or no indictment, they are not there to determine guilt.