From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 17:20:15 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats (fwd)
Message-ID: <199704050125.TAA11786@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 16:36:54 -0800
> From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
> Subject: Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats

> of people through AP--I don't find it at all surprising that an
> investigation, involving search warrants, happened.
> 
> Whether he gets charged, let alone convicted, and his conviction is upheld,
> is a different set of issues.

I have a problem with this process, it denies due process to the accussed.
This should be the issue of concern with Jim Bell, mainly the fact that his
property was taken on a warrant issued on oath of probable cause. If you
have enough evidence ("I think he is dangerous judge" is not evidence except
to a fool) to produce a search warrant then you should have to explain the
results of that warrant to a judge and that means the accussed has a right
to be there and have a say.

Since his property was taken for public use, protection of public officials,
then those agencies should pay him for the property and the relative worth
of the work on it OR do what Constitutionaly is correct. This is mainly at
the point of delivering the search warrant a notice of appearance before a
court should be presented to answer those charges. He has a right to face
his accusers FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE CASE as well as legal council by
public appointment if required. Under the current conditions Jim Bell is
being forced to testify against himself (some argue that this is not so, if
that is true why then are we 'secure in our property and papers'?) and has
been denied the right to legal council, as well as facing his accusers in a
court.

If this sort of check and balance is not in place then we get law
enforcement confiscating property without charges being filed and hence no
legal issues for the accussed to defend. This could be used to shutdown a
newspaper (for example) because of articles that it printed. It nearly put
Steve Jackson out of business.

This is what you should be pissed off about. Jim Bell, as we all do, carry
our own crosses. The issue is not whether Jim Bell committed a crime but
rather did the law enforcement agencies follow the Constitution they swore
to uphold.

Let's see, I believe the courts say that a 72 hour stay in jail without
charges being filed is the limit for habeas corpus. How about the accussed
has to appear before the judge along with the police within 72 hours. At
that point charges could be filed, charges dropped, payment for property, or
return of property could be handled. If the defendant doesn't appear then a
bench warrant can be issued on the premise that an attempt to flea is in
process. If the police don't show or can't produce a good enough argument
the charges get dropped and property returned along with reimbursment for
any damages to the property or losses incurred by its confiscation (the money
should come from the polic budget). If the police refuse to act then a Writ
of Habeas Corpus could be issues demanding the return of the property to the
possession of the court or face criminal action.

Police in a democracy should be conservative in action.

Bet you EFF don't do this one for free. "Oh my god, an ex-drug dealer..."
instead of "Oh my god, a poor game publisher...".

Fucking hypocrites.

                                                 Jim Choate
                                                 CyberTects
                                                 ravage@ssz.com