HOPE Speaker Rombom Charged with Witness Tampering

An anonymous reader writes "Steven Rombom -- a.k.a. "Steven Rambam" -- the licensed private investigator who was arrested Saturday by FBI agents minutes before his talk on privacy at the Hope Number Six hacker convention in New York -- is being charged with witness tampering and obstruction of justice in a money laundering case the government is pursuing against Albert Santoro, a former Brooklyn assistant district attorney, according to Washingtonpost.com's Security Fix blog. The government alleges that Santoro hired Rombom to locate a government confidential informant whom Santoro accuses of entrapment, and that Rombom visited the informant's in-laws under the guise of an FBI agent and tried to convince them tha their son-in-law was a danger to their daughter and grandkids."

Comments

So much for all the love and sympathy

[grapeape]

Well at least the conspiracy theorists will be silenced a bit. Sounds like hes getting what he deserved. Its one thing to try and dig up dirt, its another to make it personal and try to ruin a guys family.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[Spinn12]

Which seems, sadly, to be the method of operation for so many. We're a fear culture, and motivated as such. It's sad, but it's true. Nobody wants to believe the basic facts.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[mobby_6kl]

Sounds like hes getting what he deserved. Its one thing to try and dig up dirt, its another to make it personal and try to ruin a guys family.

What makes you think it's all true and he's (note the apostrophe) guilty?

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[ackthpt]

Well at least the conspiracy theorists will be silenced a bit. Sounds like hes getting what he deserved. Its one thing to try and dig up dirt, its another to make it personal and try to ruin a guys family.

Oh country air! This is just the thing to fuel conspiracy theorists. Can't you see how preposterous and convoluted this tale is? It's like something out of TV, ffs! The Man jumped the shark by having it cooked up by a former hollywood hack writer. All this to keep Rambam from speaking.

In all seriousness I think this does sounds a bit far fetched.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[avdp]

Of course he may be not guilty (everybody is innocent until proven guilty). However the conspiracy theorist had theorised he is being prosecuted for his activities related to the conference and a message was being sent to "hackers" out there. It turned out to be completely unrelated... Imagine that...

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[MindStalker]

Still seems a little silly to arrest him at the conference of all places.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[DJCacophony]

They knew he would be at the conference at an exact time, and what would be going on then. It was thus an ideal place to do it, they could plan ahead and not have to improvise.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[Mister Whirly]

Easy there cowboy. Nobody likes the voice of reason at Slashdot. Your explanation is too simplistic and does not require the use of tinfoil hats. Bad!

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[whitehatlurker]

However the conspiracy theorist had theorised he is being prosecuted for his activities related to the conference [...] It turned out to be completely unrelated... Imagine that...

Sorry, but you'll never be a conspiracy theorist with thinking like that.

The fact that there is a cover story implies that there is a reason for a cover up and therefore the conspiracy can take a different direction. Of course, if there was nothing said that would be very damning and the original conspiracy theory would have been proven true.

(Mods: this is meant to be a joke - please mod down for offtopic, not flamebait.)

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[MightyMartian]

Funny thing about enforcing arrest warrants, you don't find a lot of law enforcement guys who go "Uh, sure, we'll wait a little longer..."

Good grief. They did what they're supposed to do, namely apprehend the suspect.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[Chosen Reject]

everybody is innocent until proven guilty

Actually, everybody is innocent until they do something which would make them guilty. Proof of a fact does not create and/or change it. The laws of physics, math, etc. were working in an orderly manner well before any one decided to write them up and prove them. I think you were looking for "presumed innocent until proven guilty."

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[mobby_6kl]

> "Uh, sure, we'll wait a little longer..."

It's not like he was an immediate threat, and they might've learned something from the presentation. If they were in such a rush to arrest him, they should've done it long before the presentation.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[colinrichardday]

That depends on whether one is using "innocent" and "guilty" as legal terms (in Anglo-American law, can't speak for other systems) or ethical terms. In the former case, people are innocent until proven guilty.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[Anonymous Coward]

everybody is innocent until proven guilty

Correction: everybody is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The distinction is important. If you commit a crime, you are still guilty of it even if the state cannot assemble enough evidence to convict and punish you.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[MightyMartian]

The easiest way to catch a guy is if you know he's going to be some place at a specific time. That's what happened here. They are under no obligation to let him speak, but they are under an obligation as Federal agents and law inforcement officers to enforce arrest warrants.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[Chosen Reject]

OK, the word of the day is presumed. I'm not concerned in this instance whether we are talking legally, ethically, or two guys talking at the water cooler. If you are innocent, then no amount of proof will make you guilty. If you are guilty, no lack of proof will make you innocent. One can presume innocence until proven guilty, one can presume guilt, until proven innocent, one can even presume one way or the other despite proof to the contrary. But you cannot be made non-innocent (and thus guilty), simply by proof of the fact. Otherwise, what fact would be proven.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[Anonymous Coward]

mod -1 for excessive use of formating

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[juan2074]

If you are innocent, then no amount of proof will make you guilty. If you are guilty, no lack of proof will make you innocent.

Right. Because we all know that no innocent person was ever wrongfully convicted, and no guilty person ever got away with it.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, no, this is not true in legal terms either. If you want to be legally correct you simply say that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Try it, you'll like it---it's a nice grammatical parallel construction that has the added advantage of being correct.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[msuzio]

I was just thinking, this would totally be the tactic that Dog The Bounty Hunter would use if he wanted to catch the guy. :-)

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[91degrees]

Fair enough. I'm still a little suspicious about the timing. Did they just choose this time because they knew where he was going to be, or was it a bit of PR for the FBI?

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[MoneyT]

Conviction and actual guilt or innocence do not necessarily go hand in hand.

Thus you can still be innocent (and no ammount of proof will make you guilty) and still be convicted.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[davidsyes]

Yeh, but having slapped against him "totally-unrelated charges" gives an air of legitimacy to the charges (whether they are true/genuine or not). The 180 degree relation just deflects the c/t assertions and feeds the ammo belt of the pro-slap-down factions of/within government.

Of course, if they guy DID tamper with evidence, files, and engage in money-laundering, he's gonna wish he never bit those bytes...

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[really?]

I think you were looking for ... pedantic. (not that I disagree with your point, but this IS /. after all.)

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh... If they wanted PR, they would have grabbed him at gun point, from the middle of the talk.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[b1ad3runn3r]

Innocent until proven guilty is a convention of the U.S. Justice System. Individuals are free to ass-ume whatever they desire.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[AK Marc]

Of course he may be not guilty (everybody is innocent until proven guilty).

That is the most trampled phrase I've ever seen. It is that they are *presumed* innocent by the system until proven guilty. That's why they are allowed to change from their jail clothes to a suit before going into the court room for their trial. However, whether they are or are not guilty is not an issue that the courts can decide. The court can find them guilty, and find them not guilty. However, a court can't find anyone "innocent." So, he is innocent or guilty right now. He either did break the law or he didn't. However, what can be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt (not a shadow of a doubt) is a different thing. We'll have to see what they have on him to know what we'd guess, but then we'll have to wait for the end of the trial (if there is one) for the court's findings.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, sheesh. You're right, but they would have known where he would be at the END of his talk too. Couldn't they have given he and the conference organizers another 30 minutes slack, let him give the talk, and simultaneously negated all the conspiracy theories about the FBI wanting to suppress his talk and "send a message" to the hackers? No, I think they wanted to get him before the talk -- it's a 2-for-1 no-brainer.

Okay, okay. I'm not trying to revive the conspiracy ideas. I'm simply saying that while the FBI was under no obligation to let him give his talk, it wouldn't have been that big a deal to let him do it anyway, and perhaps the fact that they didn't does mean they thought it was a side-effect worth letting happen. Then again, time is money, so maybe they just expedited the process.

Whether intended or not, it certainly sends a message to apprehend someone in the middle of that crowd.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[sm62704]

Then why not arrest him AFTER he gave his speech?

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you imagine what would have happened to them if they *had* let him speak and he somehow got away? Their supervisor would have given them a very much deserved ass-chewing. They did the right thing...

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[x_MeRLiN_x]

Wow, you guys are missing the point and seemingly choosing to ignore what he's saying. When he says 'guilty', he means 'committed an illegal act'; not 'convicted by a court of law'.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[Achromatic1978]

they might've learned something from the presentation

Oh holy hell... tell me you're kidding:

"Okay, this is where he's going to be - we'll move in quietly, and take him to the side and make the arrest."
"Wait... isn't this guy the keynote speaker? Maybe we should stay at the back and see what 'value add' we can get from our presence here from his presentation."
"Great thinking, this is a win-win scenario. Let's make that our focus."

As an aside, what do you really think a PI's presentation on "the use of databases" is really going to offer your average FBI agent, who, let's face it, has access to all of those databases, and more, in his day to day life?

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[Anonymous Coward]

First, no one from myfAg should even be allowed to post here, lamers. I don't see any CS hacks at slashdot.

Second, if the FBI had all the info on him, the only reason they did it at HOPE was to make an example. They could have arrested him at anytime. They did it there to make a statement to the hacking community.

grumpy

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[avdp]

Because it's not their job to be nice and wait? I am sure (at least I certainly hope!) that they have better things to do.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[Antique Geekmeister]

Or guilty as sin and still be acquitted: take a look at OJ Simpson for someone who was convicted under civil law, but not convicted under criminal law for fundamentally the same act.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[sgt_doom]

I suspect the parent poster, a "coincidence theorist," believes whomever is arrested is always guilty given the infallibility of all authoritarian figures.

So, for their sake, and any uneducated out there (you know who you are), let's review the following - proven - conspiracies in the last few decades:

(1) the Enron Conspiracy, thusly proven in court, involving over 100 people (although only several were bothered to be indicted and found guilty), including the collusion of power company operators falsifying rolling blackouts,

(2) the tobacco conspiracy, already the subject of a movies and "60 Minutes" exposes,

(3) the John F. Kennedy assassination, which a House of Representatives committee investigation did rule to be an actual conspiracy, although they classified their investigation results (rather mysteriously, I might add, this occurred in the late '80s or early '90s); and,

the Trolley Car Company buyouts and dissolution conspiracy, which occurred over a period of thirty-some years back in the 20th century. This was proven in the 1974 Senate Transit investigations where retired executives, formerly with GM, Sunoco and Firestone, under oath admitted that their corporations pruchased electric trolley services and companies throughout the nation, then dissolving these enterprises to ensure the adoption of buses in order to sell more vehicles, tires and gas. (Excellently covered in Jane Jacobs' last book, Dark Age Ahead. Highly recommended.)

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[sgt_doom]

I suspect the parent poster, a "coincidence theorist," believes whomever is arrested is always guilty given the infallibility of all authoritarian figures.

So, for their sake, and any uneducated out there (you know who you are), let's review the following - proven - conspiracies in the last few decades:

(1) the Enron Conspiracy, thusly proven in court, involving over 100 people (although only several were bothered to be indicted and found guilty), including the collusion of power company operators falsifying rolling blackouts,

(2) the tobacco conspiracy, already the subject of a movies and "60 Minutes" exposes,

(3) the John F. Kennedy assassination, which a House of Representatives committee investigation did rule to be an actual conspiracy, although they classified their investigation results (rather mysteriously, I might add, this occurred in the late '80s or early '90s); and,

(4) the Trolley Car Company buyouts and dissolution conspiracy, which occurred over a period of thirty-some years back in the 20th century. This was proven in the 1974 Senate Transit investigations where retired executives, formerly with GM, Sunoco and Firestone, under oath admitted that their corporations pruchased electric trolley services and companies throughout the nation, then dissolving these enterprises to ensure the adoption of buses in order to sell more vehicles, tires and gas. (Excellently covered in Jane Jacobs' last book, Dark Age Ahead. Highly recommended.)

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[Apro im]

Because it's easier.
At the beginning of his speech you know where he is going, which is a lot easier than knowing where he's coming from at the end. Additionally, the crowd will be settling down to see a speech, not applauding/leaving/etc., so you don't have to fight a crowd to get to him.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[tompee]

oh, but don't you see?! They will ALWAYS have an "unrelated" reason to arrest someone....

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[colinrichardday]

Which is why I tried to distinguish between ethical guilt (actually having committed the act) and legal guilt (being convicted).

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[avdp]

Thanks for the clarification, mr-obvious. I think/hope we all understand the distinction of being guilty and being guilty in a court of law, and understand that one may not be equal to the other. After all, didn't we all watch OJ on TV? My bad for not taking the time to be careful and use the correct legal phrasing (with the all important "presumed" in it), which apparently caused a whole lot of people to waste their time and write insightful posts just like yours making the exact same irrelevant point.

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[AK Marc]

Thanks for the clarification, mr-obvious.

Ah yes. It's all our fault for not assuming you knew what you were talking about when your words, as written, were wrong. There is a distinct difference between what happened, what people assume happened, and what can be proven in court. The same words are used in each of those cases, but with differing meanings. How are we to know that you are aware of the distinction when your words don't support that? Maybe the result of all of us pedantic asses is that you'll actually be accurate next time, in which case our job is done. Thanks for dropping by.

*bows*

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent down as reduntant, exact same post is like 4 posts higher.

kthnxbye!

Re:So much for all the love and sympathy

[Anonymous Coward]

It turned out to be completely unrelated... Imagine that...

Except for that fact that he was arrested at the conference right before his presentation. So any claim the FBI did not intend to send a message to the conference about its powers and to intimidate the particants by such a demonstration is unsupportable. It also is bullshit that our tax dollars to support cutting off a speaker just as he is about to speak when the arrest could have easily waited until after his scheduled speaking activities had completed.

TThe FBI looks really bad for doing this. The fact they valued showmanship in conducting this arrest leads me to believe their actual case is very weak.

Oops

[dotslashdot]

Before the details came out, I was a little concerned with FBI heavyhanded tactics. Now that the details are out, sounds like this Rambam guy will be spending time in the Slamslam.

Re:Oops

[Spinn12]

As stated in a comment on the above reply, don't let the fact that the details are out be your concrete evidence. It's the Government, and as such, you can expect people to be framed at any given chance if they're standing in the way of what is "best".

Re:Oops

[kfg]

Now that the details are out . . .

The details are not yet out. Only the accusation is out.

KFG

Re:Oops

[Spinn12]

Am I the only one who notices the similarities of government adgenda and Scientology? "What are YOUR sins, Rambam?"

Re:Oops

[Omnifarious]

The revealed details certainly don't justify a conviction, but they definitely do justify an arrest if there's sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. I was withholding judgement of the FBI's tactics until I learned what he was accused of. Now that I know, I'm not unhappy with them.

Re:Oops

[Trailer Trash]

From everything I read, the FBI performed this arrest in a way that I wish *all* law enforcement would follow. They tracked him well enough to know where he would be in a public place, and they quietly went in and arrested him. No big show, no breaking down doors with guns blazing and cameras following.

Re:Oops

[Omnifarious]

It would've been really nice if they had let him give his talk first though. :-) But yes, I agree.

Re:Oops

[Ian Wolf]

Not me I was hoping for a big Waco-esque showdown with guns, tear gas, bullhorns, and dead bodies strewn all over the dais. What a bummer. I guess I can't spend all day bitchin' about the guv'ment all day on /.

Nothing to see here.

Re:Oops

[Tankko]

I had a run-in with the FBI once. A friend got caught up in something bad, and the FBI thought I might be involved (I wasn't and knew nothing about it). I must say...the FBI was very professional, polite and treated me very well. I am a pretty paranoid person, but I was very impressed. Even my friend, who was arrested, later commented on how professional they were.

Re:Oops

[BigBuckHunter]

You may have missed the pdf file that accompanied the post.

BBH

Re:Oops

[kfg]

You may have missed the pdf file that accompanied the post.

The pdf file is how I know what the accusation is.

Accusations are not evidence. They are a claim.

Claims mean nothing until they are supported and are never stronger than that support.

The support for the warrant being issued was that Steve can be shown to have been in the area and that "someone (through a translator when necessary) said."

A claim of a claim.

KFG

Re:Oops

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it have been entertaining if they had grabbed him in the middle of the talk

Rambam: "Look at how much dirt I can dig up one line, nobody is safe!"

FBI: "Sir, please come with us, you're under arrest."

Rambam: "Say what?"

Re:Oops

[dotslashdot]

If you're going to correct someone's post, you can at least do it correctly. Your semantic word mincing is childishly missplaced. Hopefully your work does not depend on your reading/arguing skills. Your fabricated "argument" tries to create a false dichotomy between the word "detail" and the word "accusation," as if they are mutually exclusive. Let me explain how basic language works. When someone is arrested as this guy here was, the government is accusing him of commiting a crime. In this case, no details of what crime he was charged with were given in the article. An unexplained arrest (i.e. an undetailed accusation) is heavy-handed. However, once the details of the accusation came out--that his arrest was related to him tampering with witnesses--then the arrest itself was not heavy handed. Thus, the "details" of the accusation are now out--we now know why he was arrested (accused) and what he will be charged with (the details of the accusation.)

Re:Oops

[IamNotAgeek]

Maybe that should be RamSlam. Pun intended.

Re:Oops

[sgt_doom]

I'm sure the victims of 9/11/01 are thanking you from the grave at this very moment and singing high praises for the FBI's professionalism.....

Re:Oops

[Martigan80]

The revealed details certainly don't justify a conviction, but they definitely do justify an arrest if there's sufficient evidence to warrant a trial.

You hit it one the nail. This is how the system works. The SA gave up the basis of why RamBam should be aressted-so now it will be up to the judge and such to decide what should be done next.

Re:Oops

[edflyerssn007]

Mr Doom, that comment is pretty unwarranted. The grandparent poster was giving an example of how professional the FBI acted. Why did you feel the need to suddenly tie 9/11 into this?

-ed

Re:Oops

[sgt_doom]

Perhaps because they ignored over 200 tips - many quite detailed - which warned of the impending attack on 9/11/01. And it was the same two FBI middle managers who ignored such warnings - as they also ignored the tip on the alleged anthrax assassin for over 8 months. These two middle managers were later promoted with bonuses by Feeb Director Mueller the shyster, suckup....

Re:Oops

[edflyerssn007]

But what does 9/11 have to do with witness tampering? That you have not answered.

-ed

Re:Oops

[sgt_doom]

Are you brain dead???? We were discussing the FBI here - exactly how many medications are you presently on????

Probably Lucky

[jchawk]

He's probably lucky he never was able to locate the witness... What do you think would have happened to the witness if he did? Maybe I watch too much sopranos, but I would assume since this was all related to a drug dealers money laundrying... The witness would have been "whacked" and Rambam would have been facing conspiracy / murder charges as well...

Re:Probably Lucky

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh... yes, it's always wise to assume that if you see it on HBO, it must be true.

Re:Probably Lucky

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm with the FBI and I would like to know how you know this.

Re:Probably Lucky

[Omnifarious]

I don't know if simply hunting down a witness for someone is sufficient. I suspect that they would have to prove that he knew that the person who hired him intended harm to the witness.

Re:Probably Lucky

[baldass_newbie]

Didn't you ever see Taxi confessions?

Newbie error

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason he was caught was he forgot to erase the in-laws' log files after accessing them.

Give me my privacy!

[IflyRC]

You know, this just adds fuel to the argument "If you don't have anything to hide, why worry about your privacy?"

Obviously, he had plenty to hide.

Re:Give me my privacy!

[russ1337]

Obviously, he had plenty to hide

Can you please post your name, address, DOB, mothers maiden name, social, credit card no, and expiry date (and that little 3 digit code on the back)

or do you have something to hide...

Re:Give me my privacy!

[Chosen Reject]

Okay, I'll talk. In third grade I cheated on my history exam. In fourth grade I stole my Uncle Max's toupe and I glued it on my face when I played Moses in my Hebrew school play. In fifth grade I knocked my sister Edith down the stairs and I blamed it on the dog...

Re:Give me my privacy!

[mpathetiq]

Truffle Shuffle!

Re:Give me my privacy!

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Certainly. So long as you post yours. After all, your information wants to be free as much as mine does, neh?

And if I can trust you not to abuse my information, you can trust me too, right?

I think . . .

[OverlordQ]

I think all the Conspiracy Theorists from the last thread owe the rest of us a big apology.

Lets take a look at some of the gems.

nothing like a public arrest to keep the populac in line.
I'm not saying that this arrest was for those purposes, but if you have large gathering of people who are all on the fringes of the law, a not so sutble way to remind them that they are being watched is arresting someone with a relatively high profile within the group.

And this classic:

Don't be a fruitcake. Given the present administration, if you don't presume they're violating civil liberties to the fullest extent possible shy of tipping over to police state, then you're a fool.

Re:I think . . .

[soft_guy]

How is it that they owe us an apology? Clearly the TIMING of this arrest is the for purposes you quoted.

Re:I think . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Gosh, I hope I'm never charged with anything. You guys will all assume "guilty" before the trial even begins.

Re:I think . . .

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Unless that was the FBI's best chance for knowing where he would be at what time.

Re:I think . . .

[vux984]

Unless that was the FBI's best chance for knowing where he would be at what time.

They have to rely on his scheduled appearances to catch up to him? Y

What was the point of illegally tapping his phone, recording all his internet activty, and monitoring his bank and credit card transactions if they can't even use it to find they guy?

Clearly the administration needs to start implanting RFID tags in all Americans, and visitors. They'll never catch up to the terr'ists if they have to wait until they have scheduled appearances before they can find them.

I for one welcome rfid tag implants. If the government can't find me even with 24x7 monitoring of all my communications and transactions I need to be implanted today to ensure my safety!!

No child left behind!!

USA! USA! :D

Re:I think . . .

[sponga]

Put down the Slashdot vux984 and no more crazy ranting for you. Obviously you are a little disturbed and cannot handle your daily 'police state! invansion of privacy!' scare tactics.

Re:I think . . .

[slashbob22]

Clearly they were so surprised that their plan went off without a hitch, that they were speechless as to what the charges were. /sarcasm

But in reality, there must have been some nefarious intentions if they waited so long to announce the reason for his arrest. Hitting the preverbal 2 birds with one stone. Considering that many people will not see this as follow-up to the original news I would think it a safe bet that the FBI freaked out some _hackers_.

Re:I think . . .

[dorkygeek]

But in reality, there must have been some nefarious intentions if they waited so long to announce the reason for his arrest. Hitting the preverbal 2 birds with one stone.

Sure. Over here, that "nefarious" thing which makes agencies withold information is called weekend.

Re:I think . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

"The price of democracy is eternal vigilance"
--Thomas Jefferson

So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[Just Some Guy]

Geez, all the analysis from a few days ago sounded like poor Rombom was arrested for doing private investigator stuff on a willing "victim" and that the FBI was stupidly overreacting.

That, friends, is why it's a bad idea to get worked up before you know both sides of an issue. It's too stressful to work up a righteous indignation only to find out that the other side had a valid point you didn't know about.

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[kfg]

. . .the other side had a valid point you didn't know about.

Among the evidence accumulated against him so far; a bumper sticker on Steve's car that reads:

What would Jim Rockford do?

KFG

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[Just Some Guy]

I agree with what you've said here and elsewhere in this topic, but you have to admit that witness tampering is at least a legitimate crime, and not as stupid as the straw man charges that Slashdotters were inventing and then disproving a few days ago. Maybe he's innocent (and we have to presume that he is), but at least we know that the crimes they're accusing him of could possibly be real.

Again, not saying the FBI is right, and he still deserves a presumption of innocence, but it looks like they're not as dumb as many people here wanted to believe.

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[dafz1]

This is Slashdot, we live on righteous indignation.

If this account by the FBI is true, Rombom(Rambam, whatever)did a really horrible thing to the witness and his family. Was it worthy of the public arrest? Even Al Capone got to go quietly.

The sad thing is such shakedowns happen all of the time. When the FBI does it, it's called "gathering evidence". When a PI does, it's called "witness tampering". The difference? One has a REAL badge.

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[kfg]

. . .you have to admit that witness tampering is at least a legitimate crime, and not as stupid as the straw man charges that Slashdotters were inventing and then disproving a few days ago.

Hey, you've got to do something to avoid work.

. . .it looks like they're not as dumb as many people here wanted to believe.

"I'm not the man your mother warned you about. She doesn't have that much imagination."

Just because mom is right now and again doesn't imply she actually has a clue.

I didn't comment in the first thread because I didn't have enough information, but one thing was clear; the bust was designed to make as much of a public stir as possible. This is a common tactic when the intent of the bust is to apply pressure on someone; and those he associates with.

KFG

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[ethereal]

I think the timing of the arrest was plenty of reason to be concerned about the FBI's motives. If this guy was arrested for something entirely unrelated to the talk, it makes no sense to arrest him five minutes before his presentation. Either get him at his home in the morning, at his office, at the convention first thing in the day, or whenever.

It's pretty funny that everyone was quick to assume the best about the arrestee the other day, on the basis if very limited information, but today everyone is equally quick to assume the worst, based on only slightly less limited information. The truth is likely somewhere in between - neither knee-jerk reaction will have been 100% correct.

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[DavidTC]

Um, no. The best way to make a stir would be to arrest him during his speech, which they did not do.

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[Mister Whirly]

While accused criminals do have rights, giving public speeches is not one of them...

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[TubeSteak]

The difference? One has a REAL badge.

Which makes me wonder why they haven't tacked on a charge of falsely impersonating a Federal agent.

My guess is that witness tampering is a much heavier crime and they don't have much more than "well, the witness' family says he flashed a badge."

Maybe once they get a search warrant for his home and/or place of business, they'll dig up some fake badges or ID & tack on the impersonation charge.

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[DavidTC]

Yeah, because you can trivially find people at conventions, and there's no way the FBI running around looking for him to arrest might have tipped him off and caused him to flee.

Seriously, a lot of these comments are damn stupid. The absolute best way to arrest someone is to learn they will be exactly at a certain place exactly at a certain time, and then show up there. They probably had a guy sitting outside the prep room, and when he shows up they just grabbed him. It's a much smarter idea than running around the conference willy-nilly and disturbing things and having word get back to him and him fleeing and them having to shut down the airports and wasting tons of tax money.

And, incidentally, police do this all the time. If you don't know they're after you, they wait until you're in a known location before going after you. Like, if you're in your house, they might wait for you to start getting in your car before pulling in behind you and blocking you in.

The police openly approaching someone over open ground is a good way for them to start running. Openly approaching someone at a conference, where it can take quite some time to find someone and there are all those people around, would be completely irresponsible behavior.

Whether or not he's guilty is another matter, but the method of his arrest is not questionable.

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[mrxak]

Uh, the difference is that impersonating a federal officer is a crime, and that being an actual federal officer is not. And the FBI didn't walk in and tell everyone that Rambam is dangerous, they simply arrested him. What this PI allegedly did was illegal, arresting him for that illegal activity in a public place shouldn't be illegal.

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[Dare nMc]

>Maybe he's innocent (and we have to presume that he is)
fooey, that seams to be what the P.C. crowd here thinks has to be said.
When that nigerian whats a $50 to free his $10 million property, do I have to assume he is innocent until proven guily by taking my money? only within the criminal courtroom do we have to assume some innocence. Heck they better have presented some proof that he was guilty before they grabbed and locked him up, so I am going to assume him guilty (perhaps of some complete B.S. charge) until otherwise found.
And when I pull into that hispanic neighborhood in Tucson with the highest property crime rate in the city, I am going to assume they are all guilty of planning to steal my property, and secure it the best way I can, I don't care how incorrect the P.C. police think that is.

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[ethereal]

[quote]Openly approaching someone at a conference, where it can take quite some time to find someone and there are all those people around, would be completely irresponsible behavior.[/quote]
I don't understand the point you're making, since this is of course exactly what they did.

I think the timing is still not very realistic. If it's worthwhile to apprehend him quickly, grab him at home in the morning, or something like that. Particularly for something communication-related and time sensitive like witness tampering, wouldn't you want to grab a person sooner rather than later, in order to prohibit any further illegal communications.

I don't buy the "snag 'em in public" theory either - I'd be a lot more confident in my ability to disappear in a crowded location, rather than early in the morning at home or something like that.

Either the timing of the arrest really was related to what he was about to discuss (i.e. perhaps one of his slides related to finding the very witness in question?), or the timing was done in order to produce a show of government force in front of a group of citizens that the FBI distrusts. The first reason would be legitimate in my book, but the second is not.

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[mrxak]

Exactly. Any law enforcement agency is going to try to work in the situation that gives them the most control and greatest safety. They guy's a PI, he probably owns a weapon, but probably wouldn't bring it with him to a conference. Why take the risk of storming his home or office when he might be armed, or see them coming? The conference probably gave them the best opportunity to take him down, and once they knew exactly where he was, they made their arrest.

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[Tim C]

the bust was designed to make as much of a public stir as possible

Perhaps; or perhaps they had only just gathered sufficient evidence to arrest him, and decided to bring him in as quickly as possible, but that it didn't warrant a potential high-speed pursuit if they tried to get him in transit.

Right now, we don't really have enough information to draw any conclusions.

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[kfg]

There is a risk factor calculation that goes on.

Flashy busts are risky. Making the bust just before the speech gives you almost as much flash, but with much lower risk.

Compare to busting the guy wearing his bathrobe as he's bending over to get the morning paper. If all you want is to get the guy into custody as quickly, neatly and safely as possible that's the way you do it.

Look at the Sklyarov bust. He was arrested on his way out of the hotel on his way to the airport to leave the conference. Smaller message, but much safer.

And the message still got out.

This was a message that they're willing to make things messy for people; that they're being "serious."

KFG

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[kfg]

. . .they had only just gathered sufficient evidence to arrest him, and decided to bring him in as quickly as possible. . .

What for? Steve is a public figure in a licensed profession. They can follow his movements quite easily and arrest him at any time, say, as he's leaving the conference, or in his hotel room early in the morning.

In fact, with a fellow like Steve all they really have to do (and it's quite common to do it) is call up his lawyer and make an appointment to have him come in voluntarily for arraignment. No biggy.

This was a Dog and Pony show.

Please note that I am not making any statement about the validity of the charge. I am only commenting on the nature of the arrest procedure.

KFG

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[Abuzar]

That, friends, is why it's a bad idea to get worked up before you know both sides of an issue. It's too stressful to work up a righteous indignation only to find out that the other side had a valid point you didn't know about.

Yeah, you know. You're totally right. I was wondering why people were getting all worked up by this guy getting arrested. I mean, everybody know that he musta gone done sumpthin' wrong, why would da FBI come around a knockin' on a nerd con?

What everybody gots to hide that they all be cryin' and screamin' about wanting privacy this and accountability that on this website? I mean, obviously y'all must be up to some crooked shit if you don't want no one to see what you's all been doin' !!

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[QRDeNameland]

I'll have to clip and save this rant to recite the next time I want to get out of jury duty.

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[juan2074]

Or the source of the accusation is the same confidential informant. Just how reliable is that witness?

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[DavidTC]

I don't understand the point you're making, since this is of course exactly what they did.

No, it's not. They waited for him somewhere he was due to be, and then arrested him when he showed up.

If it's worthwhile to apprehend him quickly, grab him at home in the morning, or something like that. Particularly for something communication-related and time sensitive like witness tampering, wouldn't you want to grab a person sooner rather than later, in order to prohibit any further illegal communications.

He was at a conference, so presumably they weren't worried about witness tampering. In addition, he was more than likely nowhere near any witnesses. Being at a conference involves 'randomly wandering around doing things that he finds interesting', not any sort of schedule. And it's entirely possible they had no idea where he was staying.

I don't buy the "snag 'em in public" theory either - I'd be a lot more confident in my ability to disappear in a crowded location, rather than early in the morning at home or something like that.

We have absolutely no indication he was snagged 'in public', or, at least, anywhere near a crowd of people. None at all. This is just something you made up. It is equally likely that they simply waited outside the stage door and arrested him when he showed up.

Tell me something. You work for the FBI. You get enough evidence to arrest this guy, you go to do it, you find he's at a conference in another city. Luckily, the FBI has people there, too. So...how do you do it? Well, you can try to track down where he's staying, but remember he's a PI and might not be under his real name, or might just be staying with someone. OTOH, there's this conference, you can find him there. You show up, and before you start trying to track him down, you notice tomorrow he's speaking.

What do you do? Shove your weight around trying to find him and hoping like hell this PI doesn't notice someone is tracking him down? Hope that nobody, at this converence of people who have a long history of working both with and against law enforcement, decides to clue him in the FBI's looking for him? Sit in his hotel lobby and hope he shows up and doesn't notice you and doesn't run when he does? (And, that, again, no one else from the conference notices you.)

Or do you wait till the next day and calmly take a seat where you can watch where people are supposed to show up to give a speech, and arrest him when he does so?

And, incidentally, I don't see anything wrong with a 'prep walk', even pretending everything you say is absolutely true. It is entirely possible the FBI does want PIs to know "Tracking down confidental witnesses' families and putting pressure on them won't be tolerated.". ...and?

As long as they don't prejudice the jury (The jury is in another state, and no one there would be very likely to be picked for it anyway, and it didn't make any media beside slashdot.), and they honestly have enough evidence against him, I don't see the problem.

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[NickFortune]

While accused criminals do have rights, giving public speeches is not one of them...

Really? So if I accuse you of a crime, you have to STFU? W00t!

ooh! You litterbug, you!

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[sm62704]

It's typical law enforcement. A kid in my daughter's class (a few years ago) who was taken out to the hall, handcuffed in front of God and everybody, and hauled to jail. They didn't even bother taking him to the principal's office to slip on the cuffs.

And this was local cops, I hear the FBI is even more heartless (Waco, Ruby Ridge...)

---

Off topic, but I must read too fast, I keep getting the "cowboy" message. Am I the only one here who isn't dyslexic?

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[Castar]

Uh, the difference is that impersonating a federal officer is a crime, and that being an actual federal officer is not.

Well, there's the problem! All we need to do is make sure that actually *being* a federal officer is as much, if not more, of a crime as impersonating one.

Simple!

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[Chris Burke]

When that nigerian whats a $50 to free his $10 million property, do I have to assume he is innocent until proven guily by taking my money?

Well what we're really dealing with is someone claiming that some nigerian is a scammer, in which case yes you should assume that he is innocent, but that doesn't mean you have to give him your money either.

In other words, assuming someone is innocent is not the same as allowing them to take advantage of your assumption. An example slanted the other way: I have no reason to think my next door neighbors have any larcenous intent towards me at all, and in fact I assume they are innocent of such things. I have also not given them a copy of my house keys. See how that works?

Even the justice system, which as you note does have to assume innocence, takes some straightforward precautions (like bail, or flat-out incarceration until trial) to account for the possibility that they are guilty.

And when I pull into that hispanic neighborhood in Tucson with the highest property crime rate in the city, I am going to assume they are all guilty of planning to steal my property, and secure it the best way I can, I don't care how incorrect the P.C. police think that is.

Again, there's a difference between keeping your property safe in case someone tries to steal it, and simply assuming that every poor hispanic is out to rob you. One is rational behavior, the other is racist, and you can accuse me of being part of the P.C. police if you want.

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[maxume]

I'll thank you to speak for yourself sir, I live on boundless pompousity.

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[evilviper]

Even Al Capone got to go quietly.

Al Capone was arrested for tax evasion, not threatening witnesses.

Martha Stewart also got to go quietly.

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[evilviper]

Heck they better have presented some proof that he was guilty before they grabbed and locked him up,

"Evidence" is NOT "proof" and vise versa.

You can arrest someone on very little, very flaky evidence. That's what a trial is for.

I am going to assume they are all guilty of planning to steal my property, and secure it the best way I can,

That's not "guilt" in any sense of the word, that's "suspicion".

Your whole insane rant is based entirely on a mistaken understanding of vocabulary...

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[edflyerssn007]

Why does "You have the right to remain silent" come into my mind at this moment?

-Ed

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[ethereal]

He was at a conference, so presumably they weren't worried about witness tampering. In addition, he was more than likely nowhere near any witnesses.

Witness tampering doesn't require you to be there in person. I'm sure a smart private eye could accomplish more with a cell phone and an Internet connection than they could in person, anyway. If you really are concerned about that, you want the person incommunicado pronto. You probably also don't want that person digging up more info on other witnesses in the case, since presumably that was their goal to begin with.

We have absolutely no indication he was snagged 'in public', or, at least, anywhere near a crowd of people. None at all. This is just something you made up. It is equally likely that they simply waited outside the stage door and arrested him when he showed up.

It's hardly "made up" - if you read the article, he was at a conference. Where do you normally find lots of people in public places? The mall, church, school, *conferences*. Are you honestly arguing that a conference, with a talk about to begin in five minutes, is not a public place with a lot of people around?

Your previous quote:

Openly approaching someone at a conference, where it can take quite some time to find someone and there are all those people around, would be completely irresponsible behavior.

My point is that's what they did - they approached him at a conference, with a lot of people standing around, in a situation that was impossible to really secure. Your statement that "They waited for him somewhere he was due to be, and then arrested him when he showed up." is true, but does not refute the logical contradiction between your previous statement and the known facts, which is what I was pointing out.

As far whether it's better to wait and grab, or actively seek out the person, clearly that varies by case. In the case of financial crimes that aren't ongoing, you don't seem to lose much by waiting a day. But in the case of active witness tampering, where any further contact might harm the case even more, and where the suspect is very knowledgeable about law enforcement techniques and could easily destroy evidence or flee, it seems unlikely to me that you would want to wait.

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[ethereal]

Well, if there's a chance he might be packing, then a public location for a confrontation would be contrary to the interests of public safety. It's also a lot harder to control - more chance of hostages, more people blundering into the line of fire by mistake, etc.

Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this?

[DavidTC]

My point is that's what they did - they approached him at a conference, with a lot of people standing around, in a situation that was impossible to really secure.

Jesus Christ.

Okay, let's go over this again. When you're attending a conference, you're walking around semi-randomly. Yes, you might have signed up for certain events, but you might not be there. It is dangerous to try to arrest doing that.

When you're speaking at a conference, you must show up at a certain place, before the speech, to check in. Possibly you get a microphone attached, and they tell you some stuff about time limits, and you meet the people who are about to introduce you. You don't just walk in and up to the stage and start speaking.

In addition to this, because many speakers have fans, and some people at converences are lookie-lous who have nothing better to do than stare at this as it's going on, it usually happens in somewhat private settings. There's a 'speakers area' or a 'backstage area' or something so the aforementioned meeting doesn't happen at the doorway to the meeting room, at least at any well-designed conference. In addition, speakers who are nervious can calm their nerves and practice their speech, out of sight.

Do you follow this yet? Right before someone speaking is about the only time you'll know exactly where they are and that they will be almost alone, at any conference. They're behind the 'staff only' door, with maybe a few staff people and some other speakers. They aren't on the floor, which even in well-controlled conferences tend to have a dozen exits (Conferences have moved to badge security instead of physical access security for that reason.), they're in an area with two or three entrances and presumably the FBI is smart enough to have blueprints.

But in the case of active witness tampering, where any further contact might harm the case even more, and where the suspect is very knowledgeable about law enforcement techniques and could easily destroy evidence or flee, it seems unlikely to me that you would want to wait.

They can't destroy evidence when they're in another town at a conference, unless the evidence is being carried are on his person, which is exactly the reason you have to arrest them quickly and make sure they do not flee.

Witness tampering doesn't require you to be there in person. I'm sure a smart private eye could accomplish more with a cell phone and an Internet connection than they could in person, anyway. If you really are concerned about that, you want the person incommunicado pronto. You probably also don't want that person digging up more info on other witnesses in the case, since presumably that was their goal to begin with.

I think, at this point, the witness tampering was long over. And note he wasn't witness tampering out of some sort of personal motive, he was (accusedly) witness tampering because, in addition to getting paid to track someone down, he was paid to lean on them to not testify. It wasn't random 'I'll do anything to keep this case from trial', it was for profit, and assuming he wasn't being paid to do that again, he wouldn't. (Which, if the FBI had his phone tapped, they'd know.)

Simpsons quote:

[Kenja]

"This reporter promises to be more trusting and less vigilant in the future."

Re:So what did he actually do??

[kfg]

Seriously canyou be charged with witness tampering, by not even issuing a threat, to either the witness or his family?

You can be charged with anything, at any time. Think about that. Think about it really, really hard. The Framers did. Now think about the fact that these days you don't even really need to be charged, only "suspected" to be whisked away in the night.

I think, perhaps, the real question at issue in this case is can you be converted into a government witness by being charged with a crime?

KFG

Presumption of Innocence

[msparshatt]

It seems that most of the people who are replying to this story haven't heard the expression "Innocent until proven guilty" We know what he's been charged with but we still have no idea whether he did it or not. So the people assuming he got what he deserved are just as guilty of jumping the gun as the people who assumed it was a conspiracy.

Re:Presumption of Innocence

[ChetOS.net]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is how the law is supposed to view someone, not the public.

O.J. Simpson is innocent in the eyes of the law, but not by most people.

Re:Presumption of Innocence

[Alascom]

> "Innocent until proven guilty"

Incorrect. Its 'Presumed innocent until proven guilty'. This statement is meant to infer that the courts should 'presume innocence' and let the evidence convince the judge/jury of the accusations. If you were innocent until proven guilty, then only innocent people would be convicted of crimes.

I know its sounds nit-pickish, but its obvious some people really don't understand this.

Re:Presumption of Innocence

[JacksBrokenCode]

It seems like most of the replies are saying, "see, it's best to reserve judgment." Very few posters are accusing him of being guilty, the vast majority are simply pointing out that perhaps indeed the government had a perfectly valid reason for arresting Rombom and he's not just a victim carefully chosen by the government to make an example and help control the populace.

Re:Presumption of Innocence

[Anonymous Coward]

He did get what he deserved. Thats the point. He was charged and taken into custody for being suspected of a crime. He hasn't been proven guilty yet. He's not in prison either.

Re:Presumption of Innocence

[Mister Whirly]

My own mind is not a court of law. I can feel free to think whatever I want, about whomever I want, with whatever information I have. And ask anyone who has been convicted and is serving time in jail if they are innocent or guilty - everyone in prison is an innocent victim wrongly accused...

Re:Presumption of Innocence

[Tweekster]

That only applies in the court of law.

In the real world things work differently.

Re:Presumption of Innocence

[maxpublic]

Very few posters are accusing him of being guilty

No, they're just snidely suggesting that it's a done deal while taking the opportunity to suck the cock of the FBI for their 'cunning' and 'wisdom' over arresting the guy in a public place, all the while denying that our poor, valiant feds would stoop to anything as base and crass as grandstanding. Oh, no! Gods forbid that a government agency would *ever* be involved in such childish behavior!

Only on Slashdot will you see conspiracy whackos going off on the government over news item X one day, then see another equally idiotic group of douchebags bending over, grabbing their ankles, and begging the government to give it to them in the ass over that very same news item the next day.

Max

Re:Presumption of Innocence

[buss_error]

It seems that most of the people who are replying to this story haven't heard the expression "Innocent until proven guilty" We know what he's been charged with but we still have no idea whether he did it or not. So the people assuming he got what he deserved are just as guilty of jumping the gun as the people who assumed it was a conspiracy.

A trial is to establish guilt. In this case, it is alleged that he did it, he rented a car on the same day as the incidnet took place, a car answering that description was seen at the place where the crime (impersonating an FBI agent, witness tampering) took place, he was known to have flown into the area that day, he is known to work for the attorney on the case with the tampered witness. I also suspect he was picked out of a photo line up (knowing how these things work), however, I've not seen any reports of that.

It's circumatantial evidence that has been reported so far. However, what people forget is that frequently circumstantial evidence is more reliable than an eye witness.
circumstantial evidence != hearsay.

I'll give you an example of circumstantial evidence
You've been in the office for 12 hours, you haven't seen or heard the weather reports. Your office is deep underground, so you can't hear anything from outside. You walk out of doors. The parking lot is dripping wet, there are low, grey and black clouds above, eveywhere you look there are puddles of water.
You can conclude that a fire truck went wild, sprayed water all around for blocks, or you can conclude that it rained.
Occam's razor points to a rain storm, not a fire truck gone wild.

Still and all, if the prosecuition can't get an eyewitness confirmation that it was Rambam in the house, then I suspect the changes will be dropped if there isn't any other evidence. Stronger evidence would be a eyewitness that saw Rambam enter the house, his finger print in that house, someone Rambam told that he was going to impersonate an FBI agent, files in his office indicating that he tracked down the in-laws, a fake badge without a fine print disclaimer, or a entry in his dayplanner saying "Fly in, talk to the inlaws."

Remember, this is a serious crime. Tampering with a witness is a subversion of justice. The law is right to persue this, the only question (and one only a jury can answer) is if this particular person committed these acts or not.

Re:Presumption of Innocence

[lloydtesterman]

That is because no one has injected CAR ANALOGIES into the discussion at this time. Once this happens, it should become much easier to prove\disprove the guilt and conspiracy theories.

Re:Presumption of Innocence

[JacksBrokenCode]

Spoken like a true thoughtless drone who equates any endorsement, no matter how mild, with subservient behavior.

I suppose Charles Manson was innocent, just a victim of the government being abusive. After all, if I think even for a moment that he might have been prosecuted justly I'm bending over and the government is doing me up the chute.

Thanks for raising the level of discourse on /.

Re:Presumption of Innocence

[ralph.corderoy]

It's "Presumed innocent until proven guilty". It doesn't state you *are* innocent.

Re:Presumption of Innocence

[Anonymous Coward]

someone in prison is an innocent victim wrongly accused...

Corrected it for you. No no don't mention it, I felt obliged to help.

Re:Presumption of Innocence

[Vellmont]

It seems that most of the people who are replying to this story haven't heard the expression "Innocent until proven guilty"


That phrase applies to courts of law, not individual opinion. It simply means that the government has to prove someone is guilty, and not that the accused needs to prove themselves innocent. In many countries it's the job of the accused to prove their innocence.

If you're just saying that accusation isn't really proof of anything, I think you're perfectly right. People should judge innocence or guilt based on evidence and never presume guilt based on accusation. But my point is that it's not necessary for a court to convict someone to have a perfectly valid opinion of guilt based upon evidence.

I don't understand how this all works

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Obviously I don't know about witness tampering.

Once he'd ID'd the confidential informant, wouldn't you expect him to search various records for embarrassing stuff, and then bribe, blackmail, or discredit the informant?

How does lying to the in-laws help obstruct justice? The closest thing to an explanation that comes to mind would be trying to convince the informant that the FBI was abusive and untrustworthy and that he should stop working with them.

Scummy is understandable, but only when it's goal-directed.

Re:I don't understand how this all works

[Miniluv]

Anything that potentially induces a witness to fail to testify, or to alter their testimony, qualifies at witness tampering. In this case lying to the in-laws was intended to create consequences for the witness if he were to proceed as a witness for the prosecution. The expectation on the witness's part would be that if he continued with testifying that the consequences would escalate, possibly to violence.

I'm surprised they're not also charging him with impersonating a federal agent which is a serious crime in and of itself. Though they may still lay such charges against him, and it sounds like it'd be pretty damn impossible for him to beat the wrap on that.

Re:I don't understand how this all works

[Valdrax]

How does lying to the in-laws help obstruct justice?

Specifically, opening up a witness to intimidation by relaying his personal details to the people the FBI is trying to hide him from is obstruction of justice because it might cause him not to testify.

Scummy is understandable, but only when it's goal-directed.

When the goal is exposing a witness under federal protection to the very criminals they're trying to hide him from, you better be happy that people can be arrested for that.

Re:I don't understand how this all works

[AK Marc]

In this case lying to the in-laws was intended to create consequences for the witness if he were to proceed as a witness for the prosecution.

What lie did he tell that was related to the witness testifying? Was it a lie that the family of the witness was in danger? Someone paid this guy to lean on the in-laws. So, would it be unreasonable to believe that the same people wouldn't hire someone to lean on the close family? Perhaps the "lean on" would be more aggressive with the close family. I'm not arguing whether he is guilty or innocent, but whether he did, indeed, tell a lie to someone in order to reduce the likelyhood of someone testifying. A separate matter is if you have to lie to tamper. If I were to threaten a witness, that would be tampering and would be comprised of solely truthful statements. We need to make sure we don't convict people of things that are convenient to convict them on, but instead make sure that the law was violated. If the law wasn't violated, but the person did something reprehensible, then the law is obviously not keeping up with the times. Of course, at this point, we don't know the facts. But that'll not stop us from guessing.

Re:I don't understand how this all works

[Miniluv]

But that'll not stop us from guessing.

Oh, so true.

Well, granted we don't know if the whole "this man is dangerous" is a lie or not, however the complaint sure made it feel that way. Regardless of the truthfulness I'd say it smells like witness tampering to my non-lawyer brain.

We do know for sure this guy lied about his status as a federal agent (which as I mentioned is a crime by itself), so it also seems reasonable everything else he said would be a fabrication. Especially since he simply said "there are things you don't know" instead of giving real reasons the way real cops generally would.

We need to make sure we don't convict people of things that are convenient to convict them on, but instead make sure that the law was violated.

Absolutely. However if we convict them on things they actually did, that are actually illegal, and its convenient to do so I don't really have an issue with it. Consider Al Capone for example. He did a lot more than evade paying his taxes, but it made sense to prosecute him on that the minute they had a good case to get a conviction from because the bad stuff was so much harder to get a conviction on and this got him off the streets. Sure I'd be happier had Mr. Ness gotten him on the violent crimes he is known to have committed, but better in prison for something he did than on the streets doing more violence.

If the law wasn't violated, but the person did something reprehensible, then the law is obviously not keeping up with the times.

I'm extremely reluctant to agree with that, because reprehensible is such a mutable word. Something you consider reprehensible I may consider virtous. Illegal should be focused on preventing one person from harming another, not on making people be nice to each other or be upstanding citizens.

Here's comes da Judge

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you say you're 15, and you're feelin' mean.
Don't care what people say.
Got your high-heel boots, and your leisure suits.
And you're feeling no pain.
You're the pinball piper, the snakeskin viper.
You've got the midas touch.
You're gonna get you way, each and every day.
Ain't nobody gonna push you around.
Jailbait, heartache.
Gonna push it to the limit, gonna make it pay.
Jailbait, heartache.
Gonna push it to the limit, gonna make it pay.
Suburban chislers and tough skin misters,
Are trying to take it away.
You're a love-struck tot, but you're runnin' so hot,
Blazin' down the boulevard.
You make all deals, with your six inch heels,
On the hotel floor.
You don't know the meaning, but you got the feeling,
That I been looking for.
Jailbait, heartache.
Gonna push it to the limit, gonna make it pay.
Jailbait, heartache.
Gonna push it to the limit, gonna make it pay.
I'm not givin' you no speech, you cute little peach.
I'm here to love you night and day.
Jailbait, heartache.
Gonna push it to the limit, gonna make it pay.
Jailbait, heartache.
Gonna push it to the limit, gonna make it pay.
Jailbait, heartache.
Gonna push it to the limit, gonna make it pay.
Jailbait, heartache.
Jailbait, heartache

the FBI...

[pulse2600]

The FBI did 2600 a favor by doing this during the convention...I'm sure this arrest will bring more attention to 2600 and the HOPE conventions, watch how much the attendance goes up for the next con due to the added publicity.

Re:the FBI...

[Anonymous Coward]

...watch how much the attendance goes up for the next con due to the added publicity.

Hehehehehe

Re:the FBI...

[Anonymous Coward]

And considering the actions of the fellow they arrested, that is probably the right choice of words for some of those who go there.

Re:the FBI...

[multisync]

watch how much the attendance goes up for the next con due to the added publicity

Offset by the number of potential speakers/attendees who choose to give it a pass in light of incidents like this, and the Dmitri Sklyarov one from a few years ago. The alleged obstruction of justice took place in April, but the feds waited until he was about to conduct a panel at a high profile hacker con to nab him.

Re:the FBI...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is HOPE next year, and where can I get tickets?

Re:the FBI...

[aztektum]

and how much it goes down for the following one. this is the US afterall. fads come and go

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Who gives two shits about this guy?

Well, for one example, me. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

Which, considering this lynch mob's -- oops I mean the slashdot crowd's -- willingness to pardon, and now condemn the guy, on nothing more than rumours and unconfirmed facts, is exactly as it f***ing should be.

Love your url. You're living up to that today, my friend.

Who cares what the government says anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The government alleges that Santoro hired Rombom to locate a government confidential informant whom Santoro accuses of entrapment, and that Rombom visited the informant's in-laws under the guise of an FBI agent and tried to convince them tha their son-in-law was a danger to their daughter and grandkids."

Yeah, yeah. They also said that Saddam had WMD and that the invasion of Iraq wasn't for the oil. Bush's government regularly lies about things that cost Americans their lives, so they're hardly going to baulk at lying about why they're locking up someone they just don't like.

And remember: it's now illegal to investigate whether the government is telling the truth or not, so you just have to trust them!

Re:And?

[tomstdenis]

Yes, but there are more defendants than just this guy. Why is HE newsworthy?

Let me clue you into something. Some random asshat on slashdot is likely not his judge. So who cares what they think.

Besides i don't see you liberal hippies clamouring over all the persecuted blacks and other minorities. Oh, yeah, Carlin was right, we only save the cute ones [paraphrasing].

Tom

Depends what they were trying to achieve

[NickFortune]

Unless of course he was going to say something that someone else didn't want said

Silly? Yes. Paranoid? Possibly.

But if it wasn't connected to the content of his presentation, he could have taken five minutes after as easily as he could five minutes before.

Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve

[Just Some Guy]

But if it wasn't connected to the content of his presentation, he could have taken five minutes after as easily as he could five minutes before.

Erm, why on Earth would they want to do that? Assuming that the FBI was acting in good faith, what would be the advantage in letting a suspect have a few more minutes of freedom - possibly enough for someone to figure out what was happening and warn him? Wouldn't it be their obligation to apprehend him (and theoretically remove him from public threat) as soon as possible?

Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve

[Mister Whirly]

When you impersonate a federal agent, you give up the choice of deciding where, how, and when you will be taken in. About the only way to have control over that is to give yourself up as part of a deal.

Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve

[Anonymous Coward]

Like what happened to Koresh at Waco? The feds had to move in now!!!1! and we saw how that went.

Of course, afterwards we learned that the feds had been trailing Koresh on his weekly walks into town alone for some time. I guess what the feds really wanted was a big show, and thats what they got.

Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve

[Anonymous Coward]

I consider myself on the liberal side, especially when it comes to matters to personal freedom and a healthy suspicion of folks with authority. However, some of the "Gee, they could've waited until a convenient time for him?" statements are over the top even for me. If there is an arrest warrant out for you and you annouce to the world "I'll be at the Ramada Inn at 5pm" guess what is going to happen?

Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm, why on Earth would they want to do that? Assuming that the FBI was acting in good faith, what would be the advantage in letting a suspect have a few more minutes of freedom - possibly enough for someone to figure out what was happening and warn him? Wouldn't it be their obligation to apprehend him (and theoretically remove him from public threat) as soon as possible?

Then why not nab him at home or the office, why wait until 5 minutes before he's due to speak at a grey hat hacker conference? It's sending a political message. Also, you HOPE and DEFCONers, keep in mind that just because the feds haven't shut it down and arrested everyone don't mean this won't be the year they do.

Of course, most people who go know that; that's why they use aliases, pay cash at the door, wear weird makeup and hairdye, etc. Nothing like some black eye makeup to throw off the facial recognition software.....................man, I feel like I'm giving away the best tricks. It's in general pretty good natured becuase it's expected that loads of Feds are showing up (spot the fed contest, etc.) I'm pretending to be a Fed this year.

Anyway, don't put it beyond the Feds or other law enforcement to do political moves. All the people who are saying "they just did it because it was convenient" are failing to see the truth. They saw the opportunity to nab a criminal and AT THE SAME TIME send a "message" to the hacker community that Big Brother IS watching and to keep your nose clean.

Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve

[NickFortune]

When you impersonate a federal agent, you give up the choice of deciding where, how, and when you will be taken in

Is the same also true when (as in this case) you are alleged to have impersonated a federal agent? Let's find out, shall we?

Mister Whirly! I saw you pretending to be an FBI agent! You better start running!

Better turn youself in before they come and get you - you'll only make it harder on yourself otherwise.

Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve

[NickFortune]

Erm, why on Earth would they want to do that?

Assuming the Feds acted in good faith? Well... For one thing, because they could just as easy have nabbed him as he came off the stage. This isn't the Blues Brothers - he wasn't going to vanish down a trapdoor.

Alternatively, they might do it so that the exercise didn't appear to be an attempt to censor honest citizens. I mean if he didn't have anything sensitive to say, where was the harm in letting him talk? He could have done it handcuffed to an agent for that matter. If they'd done that, it would have been clear that there was no ulterior motive.

Wouldn't it be their obligation to apprehend him (and theoretically remove him from public threat) as soon as possible?

Well, arguably yes, at least if you assume that we're dealing with Osama Bin Headcase here, and that he intends to let off a canister of Sarin Gas in the conference center. However the man in question was arrested charged with witness tampering.

I don't think prompt arrest is always the most important priority in law enforcement. Television encourages us to suppose it must be, because the dramatic structure of a crime series pretty much requires that there be suspense up until the last minute, amd with terrible consequences should the lawmen fail.

But real life doesn't work like that and, realistically, the worst case here was that they'd have to pick him up on the road, on his way home.

Sometimes it's more beneficial that the law be seen to be fair and even handed, than that an alleged criminal (and the charge has not been in any way proven) be arrested at the earliest possible opportunity.. From that perspective, and given the limited negative consequences of a wrong call, I think the public interest might have been better served by letting him do his presentation first.

It's the old saying: the law must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done. I'm not sure it was seen to be done in this case.

Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve

[Anonymous Coward]

>Like what happened to Koresh at Waco? The feds had to move in now!!!1! and we saw how that went.

Koresh and his cult were liquidated. Some children were killed in the chaos that ensued. The people
were satisfied to place the blame on Clinton and Reno. The government was allowed to continue to operate.

The bottom line is that the people were willing to tolerate this action by government. It remains to be seen
what level of outrage will *not* be tolerated by the people, or what form the opposition will take if and when
that level is finally reached.

Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve

[alienw]

Sorry, doesn't work that way. If there's a warrant out for someone's arrest, they are arrested as soon as possible. They aren't going to wait until you get out of work or get home or whatever. If it wasn't urgent, a warrant would not have been issued.

Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve

[NickFortune]

Do they have no discretionary powers?

Note that I'm not arguing that Rambam had a right to make his presentation; just that public confidence in the justice system might have been better served if they had allowed him to do so.

Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve

[Mister Whirly]

I believe the FBI would consider the source. If you were the family of someone who was a witness in a federal case, you may be able to convince them to get me. I don't think the FBI is in the business of making arrests solely on a single third party witness... But if you really believe that, hey go for it - inform the FBI I was impersonating them. You would have a lot more to worry about than I.

Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve

[Mister Whirly]

"Then why not nab him at home or the office, why wait until 5 minutes before he's due to speak at a grey hat hacker conference? It's sending a political message. Also, you HOPE and DEFCONers, keep in mind that just because the feds haven't shut it down and arrested everyone don't mean this won't be the year they do."

Holy Christ you give the FBI a lot of credit - but really they aren't that smart. They got him because they knew where he was going to be at a certain time, nothing else. I am a tin foil hat wearin' conspiracy theorist myself, and even I would have to stretch to read more into this.. The FBI doesn't run political public relations - they have better agencies for that.
And if anyone attending DEFCON doesn't know there are feds in attendance watching the event and all attendees, they had better skip the event.

And real-time facial recognition software...puh-leeze...

Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve

[alienw]

If you are getting arrested, it means a judge has looked at the evidence the FBI has and decided that it's strong enough to issue an arrest warrant. They don't just arrest people because they feel like it.

Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve

[NickFortune]

I believe the FBI would consider the source.

Well, you'd certainly hope so. One the other hand, historically speaking, law enforcement officials haven't always done so. That's why we have limitations on their powers, and require things like evidence.

See, the laws restraining the law enforcement officials were only passed because in the past law enforcement officials abused the trust placed in them. This makes it dangerous to infer evidence from an arrest, or to argue a suspension of rights in the event of an arrest.

Because once you countenance someone else losing those protections we all take for granted then nothing stops you from losing that same protection. And if it all hinges on reliabiliyt of witenesses, then it all comes down to who is considered reliable, and by whom.

But if you really believe that, hey go for it - inform the FBI I was impersonating them.

No worries - I expect they monitor Slasdot anyway.

Good Luck! :D

Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve

[NickFortune]

Whatever happened to "eternal vigilance is the price of freedom?" I understand that's the way the system is designed to work, and that that's the way it ought to work.

I just think, especially in the current political climate, that it's dangerous to assume that such is the way things did work.

Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve

[Antique Geekmeister]

The advantage to arresting him after is that it reduces the likelihood of the event getting slashdotted. The disadvantage is that he may slip away, it wastes the arresting officers' time as the audience plays the perennial game of "spot the narc" and takes pictures of them for posting to their websites, and politically slapping down crackers in public is a desirable act to discourage other casual crackers.

Unfortunately, I now expect that oh-so-Confidential-Informant to have their name and personal details splattered all over the web by the more amused of the crackers in the crowd. Doing this arrest publicly was not a good way to keep a Confidential Informant confidential. And I wonder if, in fact, Mr. Rambam's alleged claims about the informant as a dangerous person are well-founded: they may be, given the FBI's history of hiring and protecting extremely dangerous criminals as informants. (Whitey Bulger comes to mind as an example of the FBI protecting murderers from prosecution.)

Re:So what did he actually do??

[tinkerghost]

According to a DA here in MA "Use your own damn phone to call the police you arn't using mine!" is witness tampering.

lost in translation

[digitaldc]

"The government alleges that Santoro hired Rombom to locate a government confidential informant whom Santoro accuses of entrapment, and that Rombom visited the informant's in-laws under the guise of an FBI agent and tried to convince them tha their son-in-law was a danger to their daughter and grandkids."

It's an enigma wrapped up in a paradox made into a riddle.
If anyone can figure out exactly what he is being charged with, please call his lawyers immediately.

Re:lost in translation

[jjohnson]

He's being charged with Witness Tampering. What's not clear? The defendent (allegedly) had Rombom locate the government's CI against him, and then try to intimidate the informant by turning his in-laws against him; exerting any pressure on a witness is illegal. I'm surprised they're not charging him with impersonating a law enforcement officer, too.

Re:lost in translation

[talaski23]

As the other posted commented Witness tampering is a charge.

I'm also guessing impersonating a federal officer could be a charge.

Re:lost in translation

[Maelwryth]

I would go for impersonating an FBI agent.

Re:lost in translation

[sgt_doom]

As a card-carrying conspiracy theorist - not an accepter of Dick Cheney's official bedtime stories - let me be the first to point out that hopefully the FBI finally got it right this time --- as they are certainly expert when it comes to obstructing justice and witness tampering....

Re:So what did he actually do??

[kfg]

DAs are notoriously unreliable as witnesses for the defence.

KFG

Always listening to the democrats, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

They also said that Saddam had WMD and that the invasion of Iraq wasn't for the oil.

1) Iraq DID have WMDs. See FoxNews.

2) If the invasion of Iraq for really for the oil, then why is it over $75/barrel? Sure, this is also due to the unrest in Lebanon/Isreal, but it was over $70/barrel prior to that. See Chron.Com

Re:Always listening to the democrats, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does the comment that it was for the oil cause you to think that prices of petrol would be lowered? Petrol at the pump is not the only product of crude, and the price of petrol at the pump going up is good for some.

Re:Always listening to the democrats, eh?

[ClioCJS]

1) And we are just hearing about it now. They were not there to the extent that they presented any threat whatsoever to Americans on American soil.

2) We don't go to war for cheap oil. We go to war to get the oil so that we can sell it at an expensive price. That way, you get to pay twice. It's not about making things cheaper for everybody. It's about killing for energy, plain and simple.

Re:Always listening to the democrats, eh?

[russ1337]

FTFA: Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.

(emphasis added)

This does not state that WMDS were found, just that they are 'assessed to exist'. It does not state the 'degraded' state of the nerve agent would be usefull, but beats around the bush by 'it could be still be bad: the report does not say either way.

The actual release Fox based their article on is only 6 sentences long, and does not prove there ARE WMD's... just that there were WMD's prior to the first gulf war, which we knew... Were these usable weapons? probably not. Heck they might have been the ones that were destroyed, but for the sake of the article were 'found'.

Once again, Fox has streched the truth toward justifying the governments mandate.

I dont trust Fox as far as I can throw it.

Re:Always listening to the democrats, eh?

[Mister Whirly]

"It's about killing for energy, plain and simple."

Nope, it's about profit - even plainer and simpler.

Re:Always listening to the democrats, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad link! No soup for you!

See here. True, the weapons found were degraded and deemed not a threat, but why did Saddam lie about them and hide them in the 1st place? The gov'ts intelligence was bad regarding the threat, but on-spot regarding Iraq still posessing them.

As for the other comment regarding just hearing about this.

Uhm, the report was probably initially classified. Of course this wasn't made public until de-classified.

Re:Always listening to the democrats, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does the comment that it was for the oil cause you to think that prices of petrol would be lowered?.

Simple. Less supply = higher prices.

See here.

Quoth the article:

When OPEC wants to raise the price of crude oil, it simply reduces production. This causes gasoline prices to jump because of the short supply, but also because of the possibility of future reductions. When oil production dips, gas companies get nervous. The mere threat of oil reductions can raise gas prices.

It's safe to assume the opposite. That is, greater supply = lower prices. I could search for something stating as much, but am feeling lazy.

Re:Always listening to the democrats, eh?

[russ1337]

why did Saddam lie about them and hide them [WMD's] in the 1st place?

He probably didnt even know about them (that particular bunch). A few years ago they were cleaning out an old army supply camp and found 4 pristine 'indian' motorcycles circa WWII. They were lost off the inventory year ago, but were still being stored. If asked, the government would have put their hand on their heart and said 'we have no Indian motorcycles in our inventory', and these would have been found.... and that is with the latest in S.A.P technology....

Oh and hey, thanks for the 'off-topic modifier' whoever you are.... I await another...

Re:Always listening to the democrats, eh?

[wirelessbuzzers]

1) Iraq DID have WMDs. See FoxNews.

The article you link mentions that Saddam had small caches of chemical weapons, probably ones that we gave him, left over from before the Gulf War (i.e. at least 12 years old when Gulf War II began). Bush alleged that they were manufacturing and stockpiling WMDs, and that he was looking to sell them to Al Qaeda terrorist; there is still no evidence for either allegation. As another poster mentioned, Saddam may not have known where all the WMDs were or even that they existed, but I won't give him the benefit of the doubt.

2) If the invasion of Iraq for really for the oil, then why is it over $75/barrel?

The war started for a number of reasons. The WMDs were either a lie or a mistake, or some combination. The stronger reasons were oil, Saddam being evil, some amount of a personal grudge, some amount of support for Israel against a dangerous SCUD-weilding neighbor, and possibly some amount of 1984-style "war is peace" politicking.

It failed on almost all counts. We didn't find the WMDs (at least, not any new ones). The insurgency targets oil rigs and convoys, making oil production very expensive. Saddam is out of power and will be on trial for the rest of his life, but Iraq is still a chaotic hellhole. Israel is under a greater threat now, because they can't play Iraq and Iran against each other (in particular, we'll have a harder time stopping Iran from getting nukes).

The "war is peace" politicking worked, though.

Re:Always listening to the democrats, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

See FoxNews.

Fox news is a joke. It is owned - literally - by Bush's friends. Nothing on Fox News is reliable. If there had been WMD in Iraq the US would have trumpeted it from every rooftop around the world. There were none so instead they've gone quiet and simply had their lackies in Fox and a few other places report totally insubstantial fantasies as if they were news. They know that if this lie is repeated often enough then for some people such as yourself it will become, like the lie that Saddam and OBL were allied in some way, real. But, say it as often as you like, it's still a flat out black and white, case closed, cynical, planned, agreed and authorised LIE.

If the invasion of Iraq for really for the oil, then why is it over $75/barrel?

Three parts to that: 1) The high price means that Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and Channey all make lots of money since they own LOTS of shares in oil companies so, since the cost of extraction hasn't changed, $75/barrel is big Big BIG profits for them.

2) Bush's government, as well as being totally immoral and sick is also dumb as shit. This means that they don't think very far ahead (like, for example, planning what to do if they actually won the war against Saddam). The lure of profits from point #1 is enough to distract them from the effects of increasing oil prices will have on the economy, and frankly those effects will hit poor people far harder than it will hit anyone Bush knows so what does he care anyway? As a side effect of being both thick as shit and corrupt, they assume everyone else is dumber and more corrupt than they are - which in Rice's case would be hard - and that's why their lies are so poor: they simply think the public are too stupid to see through them. Thus, Bush can on the same day talk about not taking lives to save lives as a moral line, AND say that Israeli random executions of children are justified as self-defence (to say nothing of the mass killings he is causing in Iraq himself).

But anyway, 3) The main aim of securing Iraq and Iran's oil supplies is to prevent China getting them. The adimistration has realised that a free market means that China can buy all the oil anyone wants to sell them now. That's why more than 60% of Iraq's oil is CONTRACTUALLY obliged to be sold to the US. In return the US has promised to pay the market value - so long as it suits it to do so. I assume that eventually the US will simply take the oil for free because no one in Iraq/Iran will be able to stop them, but that's at least 20 years away when the market price really starts taking off.

You really have very little grasp of what's going on in the world, have you? I don't think the Democrats have much either but even if they did the right-wing control of the media in America is iron-clad and has been for decades; there's no chance of a realistic picture of the world or America's strategic economic goals being grasped so long as The Washington Post and Fox News are regarded as anything other than the mouthpieces of the super-rich that they are.

Is the Kinkster still writing detective fiction?

[jejones]

Perhaps this incident will inspire a new Kinky Friedman novel. If it gives Linux some publicity, so much the better.

I still want to see what he was going to present

[Aqws]

Is there anyway I can see the power point slides he was going to show?

Re:So what did he actually do??

[russ1337]

You can be charged with anything, at any time

Exactly.. then it become guilty by media. Not just trial by media, but guilty by media.

Just ask anyone whos been charged with a serious crime... even if they are found not guilty it affects their life forever...

Michael Jackson was found not guilty of bad-touching, but everyone knows he did it. OJ was not guilty... but same thing... he is never gonna shake that.

where are the parents..?

Re:So what did he actually do??

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again the naive and reactionary suckers are swallowing the whole load down like hungry little bitches and KFG is the only person who remotely looks like anyone with half a brain.

What you mean an accusation isn't the same as being guilty of a crime?

What, you don't trust the word of the F B I ?

Why would the government of the USA ever tell a lie?

Christ on a spacehopper! No wonder you're all fucked.

"I think, perhaps, the real question at issue in this case is can you be converted into a government witness by being charged with a crime?"

The answer to a question is only worth knowing if it's not arbitary.

Right now the answer is "whatever we like". If you're still clinging to the quaint idea
that principles of Law are at work in the USA... well, it comes across as cute.. but get real.

Santoro has a pet..

[Brothernone]

a pet dick. This PI is a real asshole if he ACTUALLY went to their home and tried to get to the whitness through thier family. It never ceases to amaze me how underhanded some people can be.

Re:Santoro has a pet..

[Anonymous Coward]

It never ceases to amaze me how underhanded some people can be.

I told your mother that you were a raving queer who did blowjobs on Main Street for Pez.

Re:Santoro has a pet..

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to read "How to Be Invisible" by J.J. Luna. It's a handy guide for going underground if you're in some sort of trouble, and it describes a LOT of PI tactics and why you should be careful about trusting even people close to you with certain information.

One tactic for PIs is to tell loved ones that you're in the hospital / prison / the morgue and use that to wring info out of them while they're in an emotional state.

Re:Santoro has a pet..

[sm62704]

It never ceases to amaze me how underhanded some people can be.

Ah, the idealiam of youth!

As to your sig, first I was four eyes, then I got old and had reading glasses over my contacts and I was six eyes. Then I got a CrystaLens in my left eye, now I'm three eyes. And I hate being called "sir!"

conspiracy theorists rules

[geekoid]

conspiracy theorists rule number 1:
you can't shut up conspiracy theorists so matter how wild their lunacy is.

rule number 2:
conspiracy theorists are loons.

Re:conspiracy theorists rules

[really?]

rule number 3:
Just because they are blabber mouthed lunatics, it doesn't mean they are always wrong.
(Remember the old church clock ... even though it's broken, it still shows the right time twice a day.)

STFU you n00b

[Anonymous Coward]

You know nothing of politics and didn't care that Saddam killed tens of thousands. Go watch some more Michael Moore movies.

Re:STFU you n00b

[Anonymous Coward]

You know nothing of politics and don't care that we've killed tens of thousands since the war started. Go watch some more Bill O'Reilly.

Re:STFU you n00b

[Anonymous Coward]

You know nothing of politics and don't care that a prostitute killed several million of my sperm cells last night. Go watch some more Oprah Winfrey.

But, Sadly this point is true,

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the present administration, if you don't presume they're violating civil liberties to the fullest extent possible shy of tipping over to police state, then you're a fool.

quid pro quo

[misanthrope101]

I think the examples you gave were closer to hyperbole than actual conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories are a bit more complex and shadowy, with an actual, you know, theory, like "Clinton killed Vince Foster because Vince was about to expose x, y, and z about his something or other in Arkansas, and then he hid the body, planted the gun, and...." You get the idea. Yes, people are antsy over due process and the rule of law, mainly because the President of the United States and Attorney General have explicitly repudiated any legal limits to anything they want to do that's connected to the War on Terror. When I get an apology for Ann Coulter's existence and influence, then I'll apologize for the rank, foaming-at-the-mouth paranoia inherent in my insistence that the accused is innocent until proven guilty in the court of law.

well okay

[ClioCJS]

I didn't want to get that plain and simple, but yes. Same thing. :)

Re:So what did he actually do??

[jpallas]

Seriously can you be charged with witness tampering, by not even issuing a threat, to either the witness or his family?

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd say that's a big yes. Section 1513 of Title 18, "Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant," says:

Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

So if the "badmouthing" was done with the intention to retaliate (causing harm by interfering with his relationship with his spouse and her family), then a federal crime was committed. Further, if intimidation of anyone (not just the witness) was used with the intent to influence, delay, or prevent testimony, then Section 1512, "Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant" would apply.

As for "how they managed to determine it was him," you might consider this part of the complaint:

[A]t a court proceeding in United States v. Albert Santoro, a lawyer for ROMBOM informed the court that it was ROMBOM who went to the house of the California family.

Re:So what did he actually do??

[kfg]

KFG is the only person who remotely looks like anyone with half a brain.

If I could only find my Missing Piece.

KFG

The Kinkster's too busy running for governor

[austinpoet]

My Governor is Jewish Cowboy.

Re:The hills are alive...

[E 99]

It's not like he was an immediate threat, and they might've learned something from the presentation.

...and then by the time they call him back to the stage recieve first prize for his presentation, he'll have snuck off to a convent, and then across the mountains to Switzerland, and freedom! ...Dude! Snap out of it! You're having another one of your bad Sound of Music trips!

Re: Bitter White Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

"...P.C. crowd..."

Good to see that you consider the Constitution of the United States to be PC fluff. I assume you are racing to draw an ideological line with this statement. When it is YOUR rights being violated I bet you are quick to start quoting the Constitution.

"When that nigerian whats a $50 to free his $10 million property, do I have to assume he is innocent until proven guily by taking my money?"

Yes, ever hear of identity theft? Someone might use some poor sap's good name to hide their crime. Someday it could be your's.

"And when I pull into that hispanic neighborhood in Tucson with the highest property crime rate in the city, I am going to assume they are all guilty of planning to steal my property"

Ah, I didn't realize you were a sad little bigot. My mistake! I guess you leave your junk unlocked in white neighborhoods? Good luck with that!

Re:So what did he actually do??

[tinkerghost]

Yeah, but they are the ones who decide what cases to proscecute.
This was a situation where Bob & Alice were involved in a fight, Alice turns to Ann and says "I'm going to use your phone to call the police."
Ann responds "Use your damned cellphone you arn't using my phone."
A week later Ann get's a summons stating she is being charged with 'Intimidating a witness.'

Re:So what did he actually do??

[kfg]

We don't seem to be disagreeing about anything.

KFG

To accurately quote Mr. Churchill:

[AndreR]

"It is a riddle, wrapped in a mistery, inside an enigma."

The Kinky angle

[stereoroid]

Here's some conspiracy fodder for y'all: anyone who's read any of Kinky Friedman's books will recognize the name Rambam. He's a longtime personal friend of the Kinkster, and appears in his books, as one of the few characters who doesn't need a checkup from the neck up. Could this arrest be an attempt to discredit Kinky, who is running for a political office this year? The same office once held by George W Bush: Governor of Texas. I smell a Ratso..!

Re:The Kinky angle

[starman97]

Kinky F. doesnt need to have his friends arrested to be discredited, he'll do it by himself just fine.
If anything his run for Tx governor is more about getting his books and other junk sold than
any sort of serious committment to public service. It is entertaining though.

Re:The Kinky angle

[narcolepticjim]

I disagree with both parent AND grandparent! First, I think Kinky is sincere in his run for governor, even if he does seem to be "on" all the time: entertainer, politician -- easy transition as far as I can tell.

And I don't think anyone would be messing with Kinky with a GWB angle. He's friends with the President and First Lady, God help him.

Re: Bitter White Guy

[Dare nMc]

Good to see that you consider the Constitution of the United States to be PC fluff.
no, the constitution is what allows me to presume guilt, and to state opinion of guilt w/o due process. It also prevents me/others from (legally) doing harm to those who who are presumed guilty.

> Ah, I didn't realize you were a sad little bigot. My mistake! I guess you leave your junk unlocked in white neighborhoods? Good luck with that!
as a mater of fact, I have not locked my house doors in 5 years, or locked the doors to any vehicle on my property (and I do have hispanic neighbors too.) I reguarly visit super walmart in other parts of the City without locking my doors with no problems to date. And have thousands of dollars of easily movable tools regauarly left in the open. I did lock my vehicle in that neighborhood to return to broken out locks, and meaningless crap stolen before. really many times locks/alarms I don't consider worth the time/effort, but not entering/staying in those areas with valuables is considered wise by all.
I did choose to include race in my post because it does matter to the criminal elements (especially in AZ) as to their choice in victims, and in who is allowed to be their accomplice... But it definitely has little to do with race/culture than the environment that these particular criminals are immersed. And yes I use the term criminals loosely, thats my constitutional right.

Re:And?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Yes, but there are more defendants than just this guy. Why is HE newsworthy?

Because his arrest initially looked like it was related to the presentation he was about to give on privacy (or lack thereof) vs. databases, which it aborted.

The circumstances had looked like government suppression of information ralated to privacy, identity theft, whistle-blowing about potential database misuse, and several other bits of "stuff that matters" to nerds.

So the revalation that the government was (apparently) only busting him for some other claimed misbehavior, and was (apparently) NOT trying to block his presentation but only using it as a means to locate him for caputre, is itself "news for nerds, stuff that matters".

Let me clue you into something. Some random asshat on slashdot is likely not his judge. So who cares what they think.

Now I'll clue YOU into something: That's not the issue.


Besides i don't see you liberal hippies clamouring over all the persecuted blacks and other minorities. Oh, yeah, Carlin was right, we only save the cute ones [paraphrasing].

Just as you see the NRA coming to the defense of black people when the government is trying to disarm them, you'll see the Slashdot crowd coming to the defense of "persecuted blacks and other minorities" when technology is what is being used to persecute them. (Think about the reaction here to "The Great Firewall of China" and its use against the Falun Gong, pro-democracy activists, and other net users in China.)

And just as the NRA doesn't spend its resources trying to help feed the hungry in Africa (except, perhaps, when they're hungry because they were disarmed and their food diverted or hunting prevented), because it's not the NRA's issue and would be a misuse of its resources, generic oppression of minorities is not a specific issue for nerds unless there is some tie-in to technologg. (Like "the digital divide", for instance. Or racial discrimination in technology education and hiring.)

Plenty of Slashdot posters are also working to end persecution of other forms. I personally know a number of them who are actually activists on the subject. But they aren't wasting their time being activists about it HERE, where it's off topic. There are plenty of other places where their efforts are more valuable - and plenty of valuable stuff to be done here, on other subjects.

So How is This a YRO Story?

[susano_otter]

Does this story have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with me, "rights", or "online"?

Is this story EVEN REMOTELY "news for nerds"?

Is this REALLY "stuff that matters"?

2 words

[windex]

patriot act

Publicity!

[g00p]

Regardless of whether or not Rambam can do his job properly - at least he doesn't turn up at massive conventions and make a scene, just to prove to everyone there that what they are doing is wrong and they are being watched. Totally, the FBI only turned up there to prove a point.

I don't see the point in sitting here flaming Rambam, just because his lack of skill in his profession has been made public, hell I'm shit at my job - the only person that judges me is my boss - not the population of a forum!

Bah. Maybe I'm wrong, fuck it.

3 words

[Phreakiture]

What about it?

presumed guilty, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to adjust your thinking yet again: people are presumed guilty if there is evidence against them. This is why they are arrested, and forced to appear in court. Once in court, they get the presumption of innocence in front of the jury, with the judge on the fence.

It's a fair system.

But, if people were presumed innocent, they wouldn't be arrested and held and forced to appear.