Re: Robert Leen, and getting Jim Bell a fair trial
Seth, I've publicly asked that no private e-mail be sent to me about the Bell case. Do it in public or not at all. You could be tarring me as others have done, for whatever noble reason. Offense intended. You are way behind the curve on this matter, and privately whispering advice is cowardly, not unlike noble journalists and attorneys have done to me. Show your face, no stalking, thanks. John Seth Finklestein wrote:
[you wrote]
No call back from Leen on my inquiry about being a witness for Bell. Fuck him, bedwetting with the feds. [Elsewhere ...] Feds and Leen in the same peapod with Jim: all lust for the spotlight and like the WWF have no shame in faking stalking each other as if serious, preening in the mirror.
Check out Leen's record. He DOES NOT look to be the type who gets in bed with the Feds. I think at the very least you should get his side of the story.
http://www.mndaily.com/daily/gopher-archives/1990/10/29/Man_jailed_for_sayi ng_he_would_punch_Bush.txt
http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/local/shot283.shtml
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/971229/29mili.htm
http://firms.findlaw.com/rleen/ http://firms.findlaw.com/rleen/affiliates.htm http://firms.findlaw.com/rleen/memos.htm
If you want to do something to help Jim Bell in getting a good defense, here is my suggestion, take it for what it's worth to you:
Take some more initiative to get in touch with Robert Leen. His contact info, including a mail form, is available on Martindale-Hubble, at
http://lawyers.martindale.com/Executable/listing.php3?lid=2076060org=1
Explain the whole "cypherpunks", err, state of mind. Give the guy a chance. Look at it this way - if he is in collaboration with the prosecution, your discussion with him can hardly make things much worse. However, if he is not, if he is an honest defense attorney doing the best he can in a bad situation, then you are in a good position to aid him. The risk is low, the potential benefit is large.
__ Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@mit.edu http://sethf.com
Seth Finklestein wrote:
...
If you want to do something to help Jim Bell in getting a good defense, here is my suggestion, take it for what it's worth to you:
...
Explain the whole "cypherpunks", err, state of mind. Give the guy a chance. Look at it this way - if he is in collaboration with the prosecution, your discussion with him can hardly make things much worse. However, if he is not, if he is an honest defense attorney doing the best he can in a bad situation, then you are in a good position to aid him. The risk is low, the potential benefit is large.
Trying to "explain" the Cypherpunk ideology and outlook (such as it is), is not likely to be helpful. Not that John's or Declan's or anyone else's job is to help Bell in his defense. Bell chose his path. Frankly, the more the court, or any of its officers, knows about the CP ideology, the less sympathetic and useful they will be. Anyone think this would be useful?: "Your Honor, I was given a lengthy briefing by members of the list, given copies of their posts and their manifestos. I now understand them. I now understand why Jim Bell is advocating the assassination-by-lottery of judges and prosecutors. Fuck the State, Man!" Useful? Didn't think so. Look, folks, Bell does not represent my views--and vice versa. Bell arrived late on the scene to the CP list, circa 1995 if I am recalling the dates correctly, having already written about his AP scheme. He lacked crypto and digital cash, and heard from someone else that our list had discussions of it. He learned enough about digital cash to weave it into his AP scheme. Given that digital cash, especially the "true" bidirectionally untraceable kind, does not yet exist, it is technologically impossible at this time to set up a robust AP system. There are other issues making AP not realistic in the near future. (By the way, there had been discussions, though rarely advocacy, of untraceable contract killings in the early days of the list. I, for one, talked about these things as early as 1988, in my Crypto Anarchist Manifesto. Not advocating them, just pointing out the technological and political forces and trends. Murder pools have also been discussed in fiction, as early as Jack London, IIRC.) The notion that Bell's defense will be "helped" if only the Court or its various prosecuting and defending attorneys are given an education in The Cypherpunk Way is just plain ludicrous. Also, I don't recall Bell being charged on anything relating to his AP ideas, even if his writings helped make a prosecution more likely. The "interstate stalking" stuff doesn't seem to have _any_ contact with the Cypherpunks list. So why would educating the Court and its officers in Cypherpunks issues help? Should Bell ever be charged based on the AP ideas, then maybe expert witnesses could be called to point out that AP was technologically impossible at the time Bell was alleged--for instance--to have set up a real AP system. But this is not that case. Personally, I refuse to be drawn into either defending or repudiating Bell. Bell has one particular slant on things. I didn't find him one of the more interesting debating partners when he was on the list, so I had little contact with him. Probably this is what has saved me from being called as a witness for either side. A journalist called me about the Bell case and I declined to say much about Bell. What little I _did_ say about Bell he agreed would be off the record and would not be taped or written about in notes. Nothing juicy (for those prosecutors now reading this!), just my impressions and recollections. I probably should have said nothing to this journalist. If Declan is forced to testify, beyond a very basic acknowledgement that he was the author of the articles in question, I sure plan to refuse to ever speak to any journalist again about anything which someone might twist in front of a jury. "Hey, Declan, nice weather we're having, eh?" I'll continue to be Declan's friend, presumably, but I just won't talk to him about anything that may get extracted from him in this or in any future star chamber prosecutions. (Unless I "need" to, a la Toto and Bell, to get my story out, to spin things in my direction---a sad state of affairs when largely neutral parties are unwilling to speak to journalists and only those with axes to grind want their stories told.) --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
Tim May wrote:
Trying to "explain" the Cypherpunk ideology and outlook (such as it is), is not likely to be helpful. Not that John's or Declan's or anyone else's job is to help Bell in his defense. Bell chose his path.
In a way, part of the above message is a proof of some of my thoughts. I didn't suggest that the defense attorney try to preach to the court. My suggestion was it would be helpful to a fair trial for him to understand some of the background. Because (from what I read), he seemed to be very much at sea with what he's been given. I could be wrong, but it was merely a private suggestion to someone who seemed very concerned about the case (sorry John, not trying to tar you). To ordinary people, this might even be stating the obvious. That was immediately converted into the idea that it was a suggestion that the defense attorney should rant at the court. Which is very revealing about the "ideology and outlook".
Anyone think this would be useful?:
"Your Honor, I was given a lengthy briefing by members of the list, given copies of their posts and their manifestos. I now understand them. I now understand why Jim Bell is advocating the assassination-by-lottery of judges and prosecutors. Fuck the State, Man!"
Useful? Didn't think so.
It wouldn't be useful to say that to the court. But in fact, if the defense attorney DOES NOT understand the background, it seemed it might help for him to know it. You say: "... Bell does not represent my views--and vice versa." While it's an overstatement to say that Bell REPRESENTS your views, I'd say it's extremely useful to understand those views of yours. The number of times you, personally, have talked about who "needs killing", is amazing. In fact, "needs killing" is virtually a running joke. Thus my take on some of this, is that there's an aspect of "It's all fun and games, until someone's eye gets put out" (or someone takes it too far, and gets arrested). Now, I know the automatic flame in response to this. Does that mean you, or anyone else, are responsible for what Jim Bell did? Not at all. However, if someone is the defense attorney, it sure can be useful to understand some of Bell's bombastic statements in the context of the violent rhetoric whichs acts like an "Amen" sometimes. That's "understand", not "consider responsible for", got it? As to "Assassination Politics", many people get way too focused on the technical details in relation to the case. If Bell's overall actions are examined, it look a lot like he's soliciting murder of Federal agents. Maybe his implementation wouldn't be anonymous, and wouldn't pay off. Hypothetically, trying to soliciting murder anonymously and failing, and not paying, aren't mitigating to the crime involved. I suppose, given the tenor of the times, I should state that I've never met Jim Bell, never had any contact with him (personal or e-mail), and don't want any. Nor, for what it's worth, am I an agent of the Federal government, nor connected with the prosecution in any way, shape or form, nor have any interest there. I did feel some sympathy for the defense attorney Robert Leen when reading some messages. Oh, and I go way back with Declan McCullagh, I can't deny that. __ Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@mit.edu http://sethf.com
Seth,
I've publicly asked that no private e-mail be sent to me about the Bell case. Do it in public or not at all.
Sorry, I must've missed that. What I thought you said was not "no private e-mail", but http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/current/msg00190.html "Remember, do not e-mail, telephone or visit me or you're subject to subpoena. Same for tarred Declan, or anybody else pissants Choate and Leen are eager to CDR." I didn't think that such messages to you were going to put me at high risk of being subpoena'ed (that's simply my calculation).
You could be tarring me as others have done, for whatever noble reason. Offense intended.
Under the circumstances, I won't take offense. An accusation like that is hard to address, but I've always thought that getting huffy about it would be counter-productive to any disproof.
You are way behind the curve on this matter,
Could be. Reading some postings doesn't make me an expert on the case, and I don't claim to be. That's a reason why I sent my comments privately, rather than making a public issue.
and privately whispering advice is cowardly,
Disagree. I thought it was appropriate. After reading your *public* postings, finding them interesting, and doing some more reading of my own, I thought you were probably being very unfair to Robert Leen. But I really had no desire to get into a long debate with Tim May or similar. That's not cowardly, that's rational.
not unlike noble journalists and attorneys have done to me. Show your face, no stalking, thanks.
Umm, I didn't send anything anonymously. And if your e-mail is being monitored or subpoena'ed, note I'm not hiding my face. Private advice seemed to be sensible. Or at least that was my view of it. __ Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@mit.edu http://sethf.com
At 5:51 PM -0500 3/31/01, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
But I really had no desire to get into a long debate with Tim May or similar. That's not cowardly, that's rational.
I haven't expressed any interesting in debating you. Your views are not interesting enough to debate. (Not meant to be offensive, just my opinion of your views on things.) --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 09:04:39AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
The notion that Bell's defense will be "helped" if only the Court or its various prosecuting and defending attorneys are given an education in The Cypherpunk Way is just plain ludicrous.
Sounds reasonable to me. Some things just can't be explained succinctly, and even if they are understood may be perceived to be objectionable.
Also, I don't recall Bell being charged on anything relating to his AP ideas, even if his writings helped make a prosecution more likely. The "interstate stalking" stuff doesn't seem to have _any_ contact with the Cypherpunks list. So why would educating the Court and its officers in Cypherpunks issues help?
True, except for one point, and that was (what I recall) the conversation on cpunx over the CIA possible front in Bell's area. But that could have happened on many lists, and the "cypherpunk philosophy" -- to the extent there is a philosophy -- should not be particularly relevant here, it seems to me.
I probably should have said nothing to this journalist. If Declan is forced to testify, beyond a very basic acknowledgement that he was the author of the articles in question, I sure plan to refuse to ever speak to any journalist again about anything which someone might twist in front of a jury. "Hey, Declan, nice weather we're having, eh?" I'll continue to be Declan's friend, presumably, but I just won't talk to him about anything that may get extracted from him in this or in any future star chamber prosecutions.
The sad thing is, I agree with Tim. If I were in his position, I would likely feel the same way. -Declan
Bear in mind that when I appeared before the grand jury, all the charges against Bell has been made, and no new ones have been lodged, AFAIK. As with CJ, there were public warnings made by the feds through disclosures of continuing grand jury investigations. This tactic has been described as "witness coercion," to assure that witnesses, and prospective witnesses who learn of the active GJ, are intimidated by what may be done to them if they fancy challenging the authorities. The GJ did ask me about AP, though Robb London did not. I stated the scheme was considered to be unworkable by persons more qualified to judge it than me. Still, a juror persisted, why did you publish it. I said for informational purposes about evolving technology. There were other questions from the jury, not London, about disclosing information on the Internet about public officials. London did question about my posting of the CIA query, in particular the address of the alleged CIA employee. And questioned Bell's postings on the same topic. My assumption is that it is those postings which I will be asked to testify about. But AP is always looming, and I think basebuilding for a future attack is in the works despite the recent overturn of the anti-abotionists' case. Officials believe they deserve more protection for their privileges than the citizenry. Beyond that, though, there remains the question of what else might be coming from the grand jury, whether to come in fact, or to come in the form of coercion to not fuck with Sam. Sandy's note on Sam's pressure pointing is apt -- whether Bell, Declan, me or the othjer witnesses yet unknown. And publicly naming a cypherpunk Bell called from jail is typical fear-mongering as with subpoenas. I've warned two reporters they should expect no privileged protection in the Bell case and its likely followup cases -- the stakes are too high for burgeoning anti-terrorism to allow legacy press perks get in the way of high-reward homeland defense. One reporter said no way would they come after me, and they allegedly have. The other reporter said not me, and they did. One reporter said I was too conspiratorial. And he has repeated that here. One thing I've learned from that simple-mindedness is be wary of disingenuous distancing of person's kindly convictions from his vicious job requirements to hang your ass in the public interest, er, to see that justice is done, er, balance viewpoints. Sure, I'm ranting, you see the feds got a wad of my self-incriminating material. And cpunk archives offer much an e-goldmine of cypherpunks movements.
On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, Tim May wrote:
The notion that Bell's defense will be "helped" if only the Court or its various prosecuting and defending attorneys are given an education in The Cypherpunk Way is just plain ludicrous.
But it does help create a context for AP that doesn't seem nearly as bad as
the essay alone. It's the difference between incitement and incitement
discussed in a periodical, more or less. Not that that should matter, or
would do much good when the Guv'nment doesn't like what is being said.
Sampo Syreeni
participants (5)
-
Declan McCullagh -
John Young -
Sampo Syreeni -
Seth Finkelstein -
Tim May