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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[kfg]

Now that the details are out . . .

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

KFG

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.

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 . . .

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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.

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

[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.

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: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.

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

[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

[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

[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: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: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: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

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: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.

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..!

2 words

[windex]

patriot act