My plan to deal with subpoenas to testify

[Tim May]

At 12:17 PM -0500 12/6/00, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 07:22:30PM -0500, Greg Newby wrote:
>>
>>  Bottom line, as usual, is to trust no-one, including ISPs
>>  or sysadmins that have a strong privacy ethic.
>
>On the web sites that I maintain, I have a stated policy that we
>intend to challenge subpoenas for our web logs and user database. Of
>course, talk is cheap, and I'd hope to find funding for lawyers or
>pro-bono work. Then again, it's a likely possibility: When I got a
>subpoena, I found pro bono counsel (and excellent one too).

I'll say what I expect to do. Partly to address some interesting 
issues about how witnesses may be compelled to travel long distances 
(beyond the usual countywide travel that noncyberspace cases 
typically involve). And partly to think aloud on my plans.

As Declan says, "talk is cheap," so I may wimp-out, or think better 
of my plans, or get advice which changes my mind. But here goes:

-- if and when I am called to testify in the Bell or Parker re-trials 
or re-re-trials, I expect to hire no damned shysters

-- ditto for a subpoena...I'll try to read the subpoena and 
understand it as best I can and then comply with it as best I can.

(Of course, _serving me_ is problematic. I had a process server make 
several trips out to my semi-rural hilltop home in 1995 before 
finally reaching me at home. And that was when I still answering the 
doorbell. These days I use my peephole, or a t.v. camera I sometimes 
have set up. I doubt a process server could get to me.)

-- if the law is so confusing that I am expected to "retain counsel" 
to explain it to me, while his $400 an hour meter is running, then 
the law is an ass

-- I was surprised to see so many "affidavits" and "interviews" and 
"pre-trial statements" from various witnesses in the Parker case. 
Surely these people must have known that though their presence could 
have been compelled in Washington state, that they had no obligation 
to sit down with Federal agents and give interviews!

In a nutshell, this has been my plan for the past year or so (subject 
to modifications, as noted above):

If subpoenaed, I'll expect them to provide _all_ transportation and 
lodging, in advance, in acceptable-quality hotels and with nice 
transportation. In advance. (I don't lend money to the 
government--see note below).

I'll give no interviews prior to be seated in the witness box. While 
I can be compelled to testify in a courtroom, I find nothing in the 
Constitution which says I may be compelled to give pre-trial 
interviews. (From t.v. shows, I gather it is common for both sides to 
extensively interview witnesses, getting "depositions," etc. I figure 
it may be interesting to put this to a test: "Put me on the stand if 
you can. But you won't know what I'll say until then.")

Oh, and no "swearing on a Bible," as I'm not a follower of He Whose 
Name May Not be Uttered, or whatever name they call their god by. If 
asked a question, I will take my time to consider my answer and then 
answer as simply as possible. If I believe the terms in the question 
are ambiguous, I will ask for them to be clarified. If I am jailed 
for contempt, for unacceptable reasons, then I expect to take 
appropriate actions against the kidnappers at a later time.

(Note about expenses: I had heard during the Parker trial that 
various witnesses called to travel to Washington were to "submit 
travel expense receipts." Is this true? What part of the Constitution 
says citizens must lend money to the government and then petition to 
get some of it back later?)

A bunch of my friends are involved in "pro se" court issues. While I 
hope to not waste valuable months of my life, as they have, coming up 
to speed on shyster jargon, I can't see the average lawyer picked out 
of a phone book knowing anything more about First and Fourth 
Amendment sorts of issues than I've picked up over the years.

Most of the "court-appointed attorneys" seem to have been especially 
clueless in anything beyond pleading out a rapist.

Anyway, I was not called to testify in the Parker case.

In the latest Bell case, I don't know what will happen.

--Tim May
-- 
(This .sig file has not been significantly changed since 1992. As the
election debacle unfolds, it is time to prepare a new one. Stay tuned.)