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.