If you didn't like what Bell's attorney said on Monday, you'll really hate
what he said on Tuesday. During closing arguments, he spoke at length
about how Bell was a bright mind gone awry, off the deep end.
As for my article, I call it like I see it. Bell was slurring his
words on Monday, and was not at top performance. Yesterday he was back
to where he was last week.
-Declan
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 11:22:39AM -0700, Eric Cordian wrote:
> Ah, I see Declan has posted his impressions of Day 5 on Wired News.
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,42951,00.html
>
> > Jim Bell's Strange Day in Court
> > by Declan McCullagh
>
> > Bell's lawyer, Robert Leen, twice asked U.S. District Judge Jack
> > Tanner to halt the proceedings because his client had a "major mental
> > disorder."
>
> Gosh, don't you just love how federal public defenders "help" their
> clients, by calling them crazy in front of the jury. Reminds me of all
> those patronizing press conferences given by Tim McVeigh's lawyer during
> the trial, in which he coyly explained that even human refuse like McVeigh
> deserved the rubber stamp of due process, all the while holding his nose,
> and acting like it pained him greatly to even be near the guy.
>
> Until Leen gets his MD, and Bell is his patient, he's not qualified to
> diagnose anyone.
>
> > He said that his attorney "communicated a threat" against Bell and
> > Bell's family during the meeting, and "threatened to cut me off after
> > 30 minutes if I mentioned" accusations against fellow prisoners.
>
> One wonders why the article describes Bell as "Agitated," "Embittered,"
> and "Combative," rather than by a more value-neutral term like "Angry,"
> unless the reporter is also playing the diagnosis game here.
>
> > During cross-examination, Bell invoked his Fifth Amendment right against
> > self-incrimination when asked about $2,000 a month in trust fund income
> > not reported on a statement that he signed in November 2000 to qualify
> > for a court-appointed lawyer.
>
> Why was this line of questioning even permitted? It is a meta-issue, has
> nothing to do with the charges, and seems only a shameless attempt to
> further poison the jury.
>
> > The Vancouver, Washington resident said he was coerced into taking a
> > plea agreement on July 18, 1997, in which he admitted to obstructing IRS
> > agents, writing "Assassination Politics" and stink-bombing the carpet
> > outside an IRS office.
>
> It would seem to me that since writing "Assassination Politics" was not
> illegal, it should not be mischaracterized as a crime confessed to on a
> plea agreement. The press does this all the time of course, reporting
> that defendants "admitted" things in their plea agreements, which were not
> the subject of any criminal charges, thus juxtiposing certain acts and
> illegality in the mind of the reader.
>
> Statements of fact in a plea agreement which are only background should
> not be deliberately confused with the crimes being confessed to. Would we
> say Bell "admitted" to having a chemistry diploma, or "admitted" to living
> at a certain address? I think not.
>
> > London suggested that there were two types of U.S. citizens: Those who
> > were federal agents and those who are not.
>
> Some animals are more equal than others, I guess.
>
> > Because Bell repeatedly said he would not violate the law, Leen had
> > hoped to raise a First Amendment defense -- essentially saying that
> > because the law protects advocacy of violent acts, the jury can find
> > Bell to be not guilty as charged.
>
> Of course, the point that is missed here is that "Assassination Politics"
> and Bell's attempt to document federal harrassment of him after his
> release, are two completely unrelated things.
>
> This is a big trend in prosecutions these days, so much so that if one is
> outspoken in ones beliefs, one cannot commit any acts that seem to support
> those beliefs, and vice versa. Someone who advocates government overthrow
> and plays paintball on the weekends, is looking at a long prison sentence.
> It is safe to do either, but not both. The "threats" and "acts in support
> of the threats" can be completely unrelated, and the government will still
> win the case.
>
> > Leen asked the judge to incorporate a First Amendment defense in
> > instructions to the jury. But Tanner nixed that idea. He said he did not
> > believe Bell was engaged in political speech.
>
> Hmmmm. Is it "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of
> political speech...?" Obviously Judge Tanner has a different version of
> the US Constitution than I do.
>
> > Bell has complained that the media was "boycotting" his trial.
>
> Well, at least what media is not manufacturing consent for his conviction
> is boycotting his trial.
>
> --
> Eric Michael Cordian 0+
> O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
> "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
