Re: MIB Subpoenas

[John Young <jya@pipeline.com>]

[Misspelled subject corrected - my initial fault, SSM.]

Tim points out the risks of Grand Jury appearance and need
for legal counsel outside the hearing.

We'll add that it's fairly common to use Grand Jury testimony
to ensnare a target - and not only Bill - who thinks there's not
much to worry about based on the friendly strokes beforehand
by velvet-gloved agents. 

It's the false testimony, perjury, that sinks the hook. Especially 
when hit with unexpected questions about matters for which
no preparation has been made, those usually completely unlike 
what the friendly agents suggested was the main reason for 
politely asking for cooperation (not telling what they already
knew the target knows and will try to hide). 

Presumably an attorney would prepare for this, but not all, 
especially if time is limited and the target does not think there's 
any need to fully brief counsel (even dare to fancy lawyers
aint so smart).

A prime suspect in the African Embassy bombings, US citizen 
Wadi el Hage, was induced to come up to NYC from Texas in this 
fashion, testified before the GJ and was immediately arrested for 
giving false testimony to questions ranging over several years of 
his experiences and prior statements to the FBI. The Q&A can
be seen at:

   http://jya.com/usa-v-hage+3.htm

Note that while all the bombers are charged with murder, el Hage
is multiply-charged with perjury.

Note also that all the suspects used a variety of aliases, so the
Feds allege, just like CJ is mani-nymed in Gilmore's subpoena.

Also, in this case at least two of the four suspects have recently
been isolated from outside contact, on the pretext that they may
communicate orders to "terrorists," but, more probably because they
are cooperating with prosecutors who do not want the lovely
relationship to be interrupted by outsiders. Or the Feds want to
send a signal that that is the case to spook those being sought,
and the two not cooperating.

As Jim Choate noted, the implied threat of hellish treatment if
you don't cooperate produces heebie-jeebies and overhwhelming
desire to get your life back to normal everyday, familiar panic. 

And if you're in jail nursed by MIB and strangers in stripes, such a 
threat erodes what's left of your iron discipline to never, ever squeal 
on comrades.

NY Times front-paged yesterday the controversy over prosecutors
offering leniency for testifying against cohorts. During the summer
an appeals panel declared such practice be bribery prohibited under 
a 50-year-old law and ruled that it is illegal. Within hours a higher court 
overruled the panel, and the issue is expected to go to the Supremes.

Even so, the panel made some indelible remarks about prosecutors
not being above the law:

  In their densely worded opinion, the panel examined precedents
  as far back as the Magna Carta, which imposed limits on the
  exercise of sovereign power. The law prohibiting "whoever" from
  offering a witness anything of value in exchange for testimony
  should apply, the judges said, to prosecutors as well as to
  everyone else.


  "Decency, security and liberty alike," the panel said, "demand that
  Government officials shall be subject to the same rules of conduct
  that are commands to the citizen."

As expected, prosecutors were furious at the panel's decision, as
were many judges, claiming that the practice was hundreds of years
old and convictions could not be obtained without it. One judge said
the decision was "amazingly unsound, not to mention nonsensical."

The Times notes that the Miranda decision got the same reception,
and was fought fiercely by the status quo investors in the justice 
system.

It's a good article for preparing to meet the good and bad MIB trolling
for all too trusting, easily spooked rubes, a/k/a terrorists, a/k/a assassins.

In answer to a query about the 3rd subpoena recipient: it's not to a 
CDR or anon remailer operator.