Screwing Jim Bell Royally 2

[John Young]

We offer the court docket of March 23, 2001 and a couple
of dozen recent filings, most of them by Jim Bell, with a couple
of the judge's orders:

   http://cryptome.org/jdb032301.htm

Here's a sample of the feds and Jim going at it:

Jack E. Tanner, US District Judge, ORDER, January 11, 2001:

  "THE COURT, being advised by the Government of 
  the defendant's (James Bell) stated intention of publishing 
  discovery materials in this case on the Internet, which 
  discovery materials include voluminous private information 
  and personal addresses of various individuals, HEREBY 
  ORDERS that no materials disclosed by the government 
  as part of its discovery obligation shall be shared by 
  defense counsel with the defendant until further notice 
  of the court." 

-----

Jim Bell, Defendant's Self-Filed Supplemental Response 
to  Government's Proposed Order Concerning Defendant's
Access to Discovery Material, March 16, 2001:

        "Comes now the Defendant, James Dalton Bell, who declares that
        he is effectively and unwillingly unrepresented, and that
        his 6th Amendment Right to Counsel has been repeatedly and
        intentionally violated since on or about December 1, 2000.
        Defendant Bell has repeatedly sent letters to the court asking
        for substitute counsel, and two separate motions by attorney
        Robert Leen have been essentially ignored since mid-
        December, 2000.

            2. The arrogance strongly implied in the government's
        proposed ORDER GOVERNING DEFENDANTS ACCESS TO DISCOVERY
        MATERIALS CONTAINING HOME ADDRESSES AND OTHER PERSONAL
        INFORMATION is truly astounding. (Hereafter I refer to this
        monstrosity as the Proposed Access Order, or PAD.)

            3. The government has said exactly nothing supporting,
        detailing, or explaining their desires. Which addresses
        are they trying to "protect"? How many? Whose? For what
        reason? For how long? Does the government believe that
        these addresses were somehow obtained "illegally" or that
        their mere possession is somehow illegal? Why has essentially
        all discovery material been denied Defendant Bell for 3+
        months due merely to a few "addresses"7

            4. The government hasn't even said, openly, where this
        material came from: Defendant Bell suspects that all of the
        material (at least that portion containing the "addresses"
        came from the November 6 search and thus, from the Defendant
        himself by the thinking of the government. Is the government
        entitled to bar the defendant from doing (legal) things
        with this information? Permanently?

            5. Is the government suggesting that this material
        or any of it is somehow "illegal information"? Or would the

        government like it to be considered illegal information?
        That would certainly explain some of the government's odd
        behavior over the last 3+ months.

            6. Could it be that the real reason this material was
        taken November 6 had nothing to do with any crime then-
        suspected or later-charged, but in fact was taken in a ruse?
        Defendant Bell reminds the Court and government that he has
        not yet been given an Evidentiary Hearing, which due to the
        highly unusual specifics of this case must occur many weeks
        before any anticipated trial. Bell anticipates that this
        hearing will reveal that all the material taken November 6
        will be easily provable to have been entirely-legal
        information, but taken by an illegally-requested and illegally
        executed search done by people who intended at all times
        simply to deprive Bell of his properly-owned information.

             7. Defendant Bell concurs with Leen's conclusion that
        "The Government's proposal is completely unacceptable to the
        defense." However, Leen's proposed "solution" clearly reflects
        an inadequate and incomplete level of objection to the
        government's wholly outrageous proposal. Defendant Bell
        suggests that America's history and practice of "public trials"
        with public testimony and public evidence, is supposed to be
        primarily intended to protect a defendant's rights, but is
        secondarily and strongly intended to protect the public (and

        NOT simply the government-employed public!) against crooked
        government officials and employees and their practices.

             Indeed, for example one of the most direct impediments to
        espionage trials is the usual requirement that "classified"
        evidence must be de-classified to be used at trial. This makes
        it public information! Prosecutor London is apparently
        treating this case as if it were a spy trial, but at the same
        time he is cutting corners, legally, by asking for (and
        receiving, if the sham continues) the luxury of keeping the
        "classified information (in reality, people's addresses) secret
        both during and (presumably?) after trial! So far he won't even
        say how many such addresses he wishes to protect in this way!
        (less than a dozen? Hundreds? Thousands?)

             8. Even more oddly, London's PAO clearly anticipates
        showing all of this material to Defendant Bell, presumably
        including the addresses he wishes to "protect," while the more
        "obvious" solution in such cases would be to redact (black out
        in a copy, or cut out, etc) whatever information he doesn't
        wish Bell to have.

             While Bell can't endorse either system for obvious reasons,
        he can at least point out that the latter system would have
        the major advantage of not impeding his access to the vast
        majority of materials whe~e there is no arguable problem,
        including not prohibiting him from even taking notes (!)
        which would seem to be a thoroughly obnoxious attack on his
        ability to prepare a competent defense!

             Defendant Bell has already argued and accused the
        government in his other filings of simply intending to delay
        his case and impeding his preparation of his defense for 3+
        months (as of 3/10/01) on the flimsy fabricated excuse of
        denying him access to a few "addresses."  If the government
        is now willing to show him all of discovery including those
        addresses (but with extreme impediments to his access to and
        use of all of it, including the vast and presumably non-
        controversial majority) but is not willing to give him
        unimpeded access to a redacted version, this will prove beyond
        all doubt that Bell's accusations were absolutely true."

-----