At 8:16 PM -0700 11/21/97, John Young wrote:

Jim Bell was scheduled to be sentenced today at 9:30 AM. I called the court's ever-helpful administrative office (1-253-593-6754) for a report and was told that sentencing had been postponed until December 12, 10:30AM.

Thanks, John. Hey, if they keep delaying his sentence, they can give him a longer sentence than the supposed crimes warrant.... The fucking criminal system is fucking criminal. Amerika. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

At 10:16 PM 11/21/97 -0500, John Young wrote:

Jim Bell was scheduled to be sentenced today at 9:30 AM. I called the court's ever-helpful administrative office (1-253-593-6754) for a report and was told that sentencing had been postponed until December 12, 10:30AM. [...] Perhaps one of our legal subscribers could comment on what's going on with these repeated delays in sentencing, especially whether it's common to do so after a plea agreement is reached.

It strikes me as peculiar/unusual; perhaps there's a list subscriber with more experience on the Federal criminal side to offer a different perspective. The factor that strikes me as especially peculiar is that there haven't been motions from either the defense or the prosecution in support of these postponements; they've simply been entered as orders from the court. (I haven't seen a docket entry for this latest postponement, perhaps it's different.) If the defense saw it as in their interests to delay sentencing, ordinarily I'd expect to see a motion from the defense for each postponement, wherein the defense would explain why they're not prepared to move forward. Similarly, were the prosecution unprepared (perhaps the probation department hasn't finished the presentence report), I'd expect to see a motion to that effect .. and it'd be very unusual for either side to succeed in gaining three postponements. Either side can probably expect one as a matter of courtesy, perhaps a second if there's a really good reason .. but three is unusual, especially without a motion & affidavit to explain why. I'm starting to favor the explanation which suggests that Jim will be testifying at the trial(s) or before grand juries in other matters - and that his sentencing is postponed to ensure his cooperation, and that the defense isn't squealing about the successive postponements because that's seen as more favorable than receiving a sentence of many, many months in the event of noncooperation. I'm reluctant to finger anyone as a "snitch" without knowing more - and this is all speculation - but something looks funny about what's happening thus far. (It's also possible that he's physically/mentally incapacitated such that he's not able to participate in his sentencing, which would explain why the court would be postponing on its own initiative, and why the defense isn't opposing the continuance.) I guess I don't really see a good (or uncomplicated) reason for these postponements - if Jim were out of custody, it wouldn't be surprising for him to attempt to drag the out-of-custody presentence period on for some time. But when a defendant is in custody, they're likely to get more immediate/focused attention from their attorney, and courts are less likely to enter a continuance. The prosecution doesn't need to do a lot of extra work to prepare for sentencing, and the probation department has had a lot of time to work up the presentence report. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles@netbox.com | Export jobs, not crypto. http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | http://www.parrhesia.com

At 11:03 PM -0700 11/21/97, Greg Broiles wrote:

I'm starting to favor the explanation which suggests that Jim will be testifying at the trial(s) or before grand juries in other matters - and that his sentencing is postponed to ensure his cooperation, and that the defense isn't squealing about the successive postponements because that's seen as more favorable than receiving a sentence of many, many months in the event of noncooperation. I'm reluctant to finger anyone as a "snitch"

This is what I fear, too. I now regret any "help" I provided him in adding crypto and digital cash to his plans. (When I first came into contact with him, he had utterly zero knowledge of how crypto worked, and how it could ultimately be used. His "wonderful idea" was cheesy, built on nothing but hot air. But once certain ideas were explained to him, his system became actually workable, albeit not actually extant.) I expect an arrest of several of us, on typically trumped-up RICO-type charges. Mere speech has become criminalized, through vague, speculative, conspiracy charges. Fuck them. If it's war they want... Lock and load, --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Coercive Counterintelligence Interrogation of Resistant Sources A. Restrictions The purpose of this part of the handbook is to present basic information about coercive techniques available for use in the interrogation situation. B. The Theory of Coercion Coercive procedures are designed not only to exploit the resistant source's internal conflicts and induce him to wrestle with himself but also to bring a superior outside force to bear upon the subject's resistance. All coercive techniques are designed to induce regression. As Hinkle notes in "The Physiological State of the Interrogation Subject as it Affects Brain Function"(7), the result of external pressures of sufficient intensity is the loss of those defenses most recently acquired by civilized man: "... Farber says that the response to coercion typically contains "... at least three important elements: debility, dependency, and dread." Prisoners "... have reduced viability, are helplessly dependent on their captors for the satisfaction of their many basic needs, and experience the emotional and motivational reactions of intense fear and anxiety.... Only subjects who have reached a point where they are under delusions are likely to make false confessions that they believe. The profound moral objection to applying duress past the point of irreversible psychological damage has been stated. Judging the validity of other ethical arguments about coercion exceeds the scope of this paper. The following are the principal coercive techniques of interrogation: arrest, detention, deprivation of sensory stimuli through solitary confinement or similar methods, threats and fear, debility, pain, heightened suggestibility and hypnosis, narcosis, and induced regression. C. Arrest The manner and timing of arrest can contribute substantially to the interrogator's purposes. D. Detention If, through the cooperation of a liaison service or by unilateral means, arrangements have been made for the confinement of a resistant source, the circumstances of detention are arranged to enhance within the subject his feelings of being cut off from the known and the reassuring, and of being plunged into the strange. E. Deprivation of Sensory Stimuli John C. Lilly found "... that isolation per se acts on most persons as a powerful stress...." "The symptoms most commonly produced by isolation are superstition, intense love of any other living thing, perceiving inanimate objects as alive, hallucinations, and delusions." "It is obvious that inner factors in the mind tend to be projected outward, that some of the mind's activity which is usually reality-bound now becomes free to turn to phantasy and ultimately to hallucination and delusion." F. Threats and Fear The threat of coercion usually weakens or destroys resistance more effectively than coercion itself. The same principle holds for other fears: sustained long enough, a strong fear of anything vague or unknown induces regression. Threats delivered coldly are more effective than those shouted in rage. It is not enough that a resistant source should placed under the tension of fear; he must also discern an acceptable escape route. In brief, the threat is like all other coercive techniques in being most effective when so used as to foster regression and when joined with a suggested way out of the dilemma, a rationalization acceptable to the interrogatee. G. Debility The available evidence suggests that resistance is sapped principally by psychological rather than physical pressures. The threat of debility - for example, a brief deprivation of food - may induce much more anxiety than prolonged hunger. H. Pain "In the simple torture situation the contest is one between the individual and his tormentor (.... and he can frequently endure). When the individual is told to stand at attention for long periods, an intervening factor is introduced. The immediate source of pain is not the interrogator but the victim himself. The motivational strength of the individual is likely to exhaust itself in this internal encounter.... I. Heightened Suggestibility and Hypnosis Merton M. Gill and Margaret Brenman state, "The psychoanalytic theory of hypnosis clearly implies, where it does not explicitly state, that hypnosis is a form of regression." And they add, "...induction [of hypnosis] is the process of bringing about a regression, while the hypnotic state is the established regression." The problem of overcoming the resistance of an uncooperative interrogatee is essentially a problem of inducing regression to a level at which the resistance can no longer be sustained. Hypnosis is one way of regressing people. J. Narcosis Just as the threat of pain may more effectively induce compliance than its infliction, so an interrogatee's mistaken belief that he has been drugged may make him a more useful interrogation subject than he would be under narcosis. Nevertheless, drugs can be effective in overcoming resistance not dissolved by other techniques. As has already been noted, the so-called silent drug (a pharmacologically potent substance given to a person unaware of its administration) can make possible the induction of hypnotic trance in a previously unwilling subject. K. The Detection of Malingering Another technique is to pretend to take the deception seriously, express grave concern, and tell the "patient" that the only remedy for his illness is a series of electric shock treatments or a frontal lobotomy.