From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 15:02:50 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Will Bell get the rest of us in trouble?
In-Reply-To: <v0302090cafbbdd5e8baf@[139.167.130.246]>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970604235647.007645e4@pop.sirius.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Tim May wrote:

> However, the focus, at least for why he has been denied bail, is strongly
> on the "assassination politics" essays and communications, and on
> "overthrowing the government" sorts of things. (This according to the
> affidavit, and according to what Greg Broiles relayed from Bell's
> court-appointed lawyer.)

Actually, I haven't spoken with Bell's attorney, but John Young did. My
comments about Jim and his situation, jail policies, etc., are based on
reading the search warrant docs, the complaint, and on a general
understanding of the practical/applied side of criminal law. I don't have
any knowledge about the specific facts of this case that aren't on my site
or John Young's. Several of us from C2Net did talk with Jim's mom on the
telephone a day or two after the raid, but didn't learn anything that
hasn't been covered in the various newspaper articles about the case.

Has anyone read/heard anything about the nature of the grand jury
proceedings which are scheduled? The articles I've seen have suggested that
perhaps Jim will get good news from the grand jury - but I'm wondering if
it's not the federal prosecutor's way to seek *more* charges, fish for more
evidence (witnesses can be subpoena'd to testify before the grand jury, and
aren't allowed to have their own counsel present with them in the hearing
room during their testimony, although they are allowed to take the Fifth)
and/or try out some of the weirder conspiracy/militia stuff in front of
more or less ordinary citizens. A grand jury indictment (or refusal to
indict) is a good way for a prosecutor to deflect scrutiny/publicity from
their own decisions, and blame the outcome on a third party. If they
indict, the prosecutor points to their decision as proof that s/he isn't
just indulging a personal vendetta against the defendant. If they don't
indict, the prosecutor can point out that s/he did their best but was
thwarted by a third party. 

--
Greg Broiles                | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell:
gbroiles@netbox.com         | 
http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.
                            |