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.
H. 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"
