My plan to deal with subpoenas to testify
Tim May
tcmay at got.net
Wed Dec 6 11:01:52 PST 2000
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.)
More information about the Testlist
mailing list