Re: Bell Case Subpoena

2001-01-10 Thread Tim May

At 5:09 PM -0500 1/8/01, John Young wrote:
Today at 4:30 PM two Treasury agents, Tom Jack and Matthew
Mc Whirr, served me a Subpoena to Testify Before Grand Jury,
in US District Court of Western Washington, Seattle, WA, on
January 25, 2001, 9:00 AM. Robb London, AUSA, is the
applicant.

The subpoena states in bold caps "We request that you do not
disclose the existence of this subpoena, because such a
disclosure may make it more difficult to conduct the investigation."
...
   Please provide any and all documents, papers, letters, computer
   disks, photographs, notes, objects, information, or other items
   in your possession or under your control, including electronically
   stored or computer records, which:

 1. Name, mention, describe, discuss, involve or relate to James
 Dalton Bell, a/k/a Jim Bell, or


By the way, John, thanks for the "heads up." I purged my archives of 
Jim Bell e-mail sent directly to me, though I left on my system the 
e-mail he copied the list on.


(Yes, I purged the back-ups, too. A good reason not to back up e-mail 
to CD-Rs.)


--Tim May
-- 
Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED]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




Re: Bell Case Subpoena

2001-01-09 Thread John Young

We've completed transcription of the subpoena and attachments:

   http://cryptome.org/jdb-subpoena.htm

The Information for Grand Jury Witnesses says, 

  "The witness is required to answer all questions asked, 
  except to the extent that a truthful answer to a question 
  would tend to incriminate the witness. A knowingly false 
  answer to any question could be the basis for a prosecution 
  of the witness for perjury. Anything a Grand Jury witness 
  says which tends to incriminate him may be used against 
  him by the Grand Jury, or later used against him in Court."

That's good 5A advice to protect against coercion, intimidation,
squealing, fishing, entrapment, blindsiding, ham sandwiching,
and believing you're saving your ass by disbelieving what the
witness Information threatens:

  "The mere fact that this information accompanies your subpoena
  should not be taken as any indication or suggestion that you
  are under investigation or are likely to be charged with a crime."





Re: Bell Case Subpoena

2001-01-09 Thread Jim Burnes

On Monday 08 January 2001 16:09, John Young wrote:
   You are also commanded to bring with you the following
   document(s) or object(s):

   Please provide any and all documents, papers, letters, computer
   disks, photographs, notes, objects, information, or other items
   in your possession or under your control, including electronically
   stored or computer records, which:

 1. Name, mention, describe, discuss, involve or relate to James
 Dalton Bell, a/k/a Jim Bell, or

 2.  Were previously possessed, owned, created, sent by, transported,
 or oftherwise affiliated with James Dalton Bell, a/k/a Jim Bell, or

How would you know if it was sent by him unless it had a digital signature
that you are willing to testify in court was know to belong to him and
had not been comprimised?

jim

-- 
Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of
himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we
found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this
question.   -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural




Re: Bell Case Subpoena

2001-01-09 Thread Bill Stewart

On Monday 08 January 2001 16:09, John Young wrote:
   You are also commanded to bring with you the following
   document(s) or object(s):

   Please provide any and all documents, papers, letters, computer
   disks, photographs, notes, objects, information, or other items
   in your possession or under your control, including electronically
   stored or computer records, which:

 1. Name, mention, describe, discuss, involve or relate to James
 Dalton Bell, a/k/a Jim Bell, or

 2.  Were previously possessed, owned, created, sent by, transported,
 or oftherwise affiliated with James Dalton Bell, a/k/a Jim Bell, or

How would you know if it was sent by him unless it had a digital signature
that you are willing to testify in court was know to belong to him and
had not been comprimised?

I'd think there'd be serious problems with most of the evidence
in this case being hearsay, except stuff specifically
posted by Jim Bell.
Thanks! 
Bill
Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639




Re: Bell Case Subpoena

2001-01-09 Thread Tim May

At 12:33 PM -0800 1/9/01, Bill Stewart wrote:
  On Monday 08 January 2001 16:09, John Young wrote:
 You are also commanded to bring with you the following
document(s) or object(s):

Please provide any and all documents, papers, letters, computer
disks, photographs, notes, objects, information, or other items
in your possession or under your control, including electronically
stored or computer records, which:

   1. Name, mention, describe, discuss, involve or relate to James
   Dalton Bell, a/k/a Jim Bell, or

  2.  Were previously possessed, owned, created, sent by, transported,
  or oftherwise affiliated with James Dalton Bell, a/k/a Jim Bell, or

How would you know if it was sent by him unless it had a digital signature
that you are willing to testify in court was know to belong to him and
had not been comprimised?

I'd think there'd be serious problems with most of the evidence
in this case being hearsay, except stuff specifically
posted by Jim Bell.

ven a "From: Jim Bell" doesn't prove anything. Besides knowing this 
from first principles (about spoofing, signatures, etc.), we have 
seen this demonstrated on this very list. Recall that various posters 
were claiming to be "Toto" during the unfolding of that situation.

Recall that Detweiler (presumably) used to issue posts with my name 
attached, with Nick Szabo's name attached, with Eric Hughes' name 
attached, etc.

These points were never tested in the court cases of Bell or Parker.

John Young could quite easily show up in Seattle with _none_ of the 
items the subpoena calls for. If questioned, he could say he had no 
means of knowing if the articles, posts, etc. were in fact from Bell 
or were generated by Infowar cointelpro operatives in law enforcement 
or even by Detweiler or May or whomever.

Also, even if he chooses to comply and grep through his mail archives 
for "any and all documents...mention...discussJim Bell," this 
would presumably turn up many hundreds of such documents. And the 
provenance will be unknown (an ordinary mail spool, or Eudora folder, 
or Outlook Express whatever, etc., being editable and alterable).

John Young (or anyone else) could have edited his mail spool to put 
words into "Bell"'s alleged mail.

I expect this upcoming trial will not be the case which hinges on 
these kinds of issues, but some court will someday have to contend 
with this utter malleability of received mail files. Unlike paper 
letters which can be forensically analyzed, e-mail is nearly 
meaningless.


--Tim May
-- 
Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED]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




Re: Bell Case Subpoena

2001-01-09 Thread Declan McCullagh

On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 02:44:57PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
 I expect this upcoming trial will not be the case which hinges on 
 these kinds of issues, but some court will someday have to contend 
 with this utter malleability of received mail files. Unlike paper 
 letters which can be forensically analyzed, e-mail is nearly 
 meaningless.

Yes and no. Courts have figured out long ago how to deal with
malleable computer files, of which email is a special case. And notes
allegedly taken during a telephone call or meeting (which were
important during the MS antitrust trial) are equally malleable.

What the prosecution here is interested in is chain of custody, did
you receive this message, can you verify that Exhibit A is what you
received from [EMAIL PROTECTED], etc. with perjury as a
deterrent. Then they can use phone records to show a defendant was
online then via a dialup connection...

It strikes me that this is a sort of link padding: If you're online
all the time, those phone records will be virtually useless.

-Declan




Bell Case Subpoena

2001-01-08 Thread John Young

Today at 4:30 PM two Treasury agents, Tom Jack and Matthew
Mc Whirr, served me a Subpoena to Testify Before Grand Jury, 
in US District Court of Western Washington, Seattle, WA, on 
January 25, 2001, 9:00 AM. Robb London, AUSA, is the 
applicant. 

The agents asked no questions except to verify my identity. 
The principal agent, Mr. Jack, referred me to Special  Agent 
Jeff Gordon for questions if I had any, and presented a note 
with Jeff's name, title, Treasury office, and phone number.
Mr. Jack said they knew nothing about the case and were only 
serving the subpoena. I asked for Mr. McWhirr's name, borrowed
his pen to jot both names -- neither had cards, only badges to
show. Mr. Jack said they were with Treasury Inspector
General for Tax Adminstration (TIGTA), as is Jeff.

The date of the subpoena is December 27, 2000, and was
faxed to New York at 8:36 AM today. 

The subpoena states in bold caps "We request that you do not 
disclose the existence of this subpoena, because such a 
disclosure may make it more difficult to conduct the investigation."

The subpoena is one page, with two pages of attachments,
one titled "Information for Grand Jury Witnesses," the other
a description of arrangements for reimbursement of
expenses.

The subpoena orders:

  You are commanded to appear and testify before the Grand
  Jury at place, date and time (as given above).

And,

  You are also commanded to bring with you the following
  document(s) or object(s):

  Please provide any and all documents, papers, letters, computer
  disks, photographs, notes, objects, information, or other items
  in your possession or under your control, including electronically
  stored or computer records, which:

1. Name, mention, describe, discuss, involve or relate to James
Dalton Bell, a/k/a Jim Bell, or

2.  Were previously possessed, owned, created, sent by, transported,
or oftherwise affiliated with James Dalton Bell, a/k/a Jim Bell, or

3. Contain the names, addresses, license plate numbers, or any
other identifying information involving any Government employees.

  This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to
  depart by the court or by an officer acting on behalf of the court.

-

We'll do a full transcription of the whole shebang to post on Cryptome 
tonight.

Nothing in the subpoena indicates that it is restricted to the current
interstate stalking charges against Jim. Those charges are
not mentioned.

Anybody else who got one of these, or other subpoenas, and 
wants to share send it over. Our fax: 212-787-6102. Delete any 
info you don't want to be public.





Re: Bell Case Subpoena

2001-01-08 Thread John Young

Jim burnes wrote:

How would you know if it was sent by him unless it had a digital signature
that you are willing to testify in court was know to belong to him and
had not been comprimised?

Right. Nor could I know that "Jim Bell" who's was posting to cpunks
is Jim Bell or a Jim Bell being run by London/Gordon et cie.

Remember that a parallel grand jury investigation was announced 
during CJ's trial to spook those who might consider tampering with 
blind justice. Then nothing more was heard of that Robb shot, as 
far as I know.

The purpose of the alleged grand jury of my subpoena is a 
mystery, but it's surely ham sandwich bait of some kind. An
invitation to perjure or self-incriminate.

Jim Bell is, and has been, fed bait since he was released.
Whether he was that before his first bust, that's a reasonable
question. Bell's shit certainly bred to CJ's shafting.

WWA pack believe they've got a winning campaign to keep 
on trucking, using secret agents of persuasion.









Re: Bell Case Subpoena

2001-01-08 Thread montag montag

The purpose of the alleged grand jury of my subpoena
is a 
mystery, but it's surely ham sandwich bait of some
kind. An
invitation to perjure or self-incriminate.

Look at the bright side - authugrities are afraid.
Using the
only "legal" recourse left - grand jury sub - to
silence and
intimidate is a clear sign of fear. These are good
times. In bad
times a pot joint would be discovered on JYA premises.




__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/