HOPE Speaker Rombom Charged with Witness Tampering 218
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."
So much for all the love and sympathy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So much for all the love and sympathy (Score:4, Interesting)
What makes you think it's all true and he's (note the apostrophe) guilty?
Re:So much for all the love and sympathy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So much for all the love and sympathy (Score:2, Funny)
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
Re:So much for all the love and sympathy (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
Re:So much for all the love and sympathy (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Re:So much for all the love and sympathy (Score:2)
Re:So much for all the love and sympathy (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 "i
Re:So much for all the love and sympathy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So much for all the love and sympathy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So much for all the love and sympathy (Score:2)
Re:So much for all the love and sympathy (Score:2)
Re:So much for all the love and sympathy (Score:2)
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.
Depends what they were trying to achieve (Score:3, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve (Score:2)
Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, I now expect that oh-so-Confidential-Informant to have their name and personal details s
Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve (Score:3, Insightful)
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 w
Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve (Score:2)
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?
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 (Score:2)
Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve (Score:2)
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 even
Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve (Score:2)
2 words (Score:3, Insightful)
3 words (Score:2)
What about it?
Re:Depends what they were trying to achieve (Score:2)
I just think, especially in the current political climate, that it's dangerous to assume that such is the way things did work.
Re:So much for all the love and sympathy (Score:2)
Good grief. They did what they're supposed to do, namely apprehend the suspect.
Re:So much for all the love and sympathy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The hills are alive... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So much for all the love and sympathy (Score:2)
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 da
Re:So much for all the love and sympathy (Score:2, Insightful)
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 seri
conspiracy theorists rules (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Just because they are blabber mouthed lunatics, it doesn't mean they are always wrong.
(Remember the old church clock
Oops (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oops (Score:5, Insightful)
The details are not yet out. Only the accusation is out.
KFG
Re:Oops (Score:2)
BBH
Re:Oops (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oops (Score:2, Insightful)
It would've been really nice if they had let him give his talk first though. :-) But yes, I agree.
Re:Oops (Score:4, Funny)
Nothing to see here.
Re:Oops (Score:2)
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.
Probably Lucky (Score:2)
Re:Probably Lucky (Score:2)
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.
Give me my privacy! (Score:2)
Obviously, he had plenty to hide.
Re:Give me my privacy! (Score:4, Insightful)
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! (Score:2)
And if I can trust you not to abuse my information, you can trust me too, right?
I think . . . (Score:2, Informative)
Lets take a look at some of the gems.
And this classic:
Re:I think . . . (Score:2)
Re:I think . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I think . . . (Score:2, Flamebait)
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 schedule
Re:I think . . . (Score:2)
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 . . . (Score:2)
Sure. Over here, that "nefarious" thing which makes agencies withold information is called weekend.
quid pro quo (Score:2)
So we don't have to hate the FBI for this? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:2, Funny)
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? (Score:2)
Again, not saying the FBI is right, and he still deserves a presumption of innocence, but it looks like they're not
Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this? (Score:3, Insightful)
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. ch
Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this? (Score:2)
Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this? (Score:2)
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 reaso
Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this? (Score:2)
"Evidence" is NOT "proof" and vise versa.
You can arrest someone on very little, very flaky evidence. That's what a trial is for.
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? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this? (Score:2)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2, Informative)
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 ar
Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this? (Score:2)
Re:So we don't have to hate the FBI for this? (Score:2)
Really? So if I accuse you of a crime, you have to STFU? W00t!
ooh! You litterbug, you!
Simpsons quote: (Score:4, Funny)
Presumption of Innocence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Presumption of Innocence (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
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
Re:Presumption of Innocence (Score:2)
In the real world things work differently.
Re:Presumption of Innocence (Score:2)
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 descriptio
I don't understand how this all works (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
I'm surprised they're not also charging him with impersonating a federal agent which is a serious crim
Re:I don't understand how this all works (Score:2)
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 argu
Re:I don't understand how this all works (Score:2)
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 t
Re:I don't understand how this all works (Score:5, Informative)
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 FBI... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:the FBI... (Score:2)
lost in translation (Score:2, Troll)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Is the Kinkster still writing detective fiction? (Score:2)
The Kinky angle (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Kinky angle (Score:2)
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:So what did he actually do?? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:So what did he actually do?? (Score:2)
Re:So what did he actually do?? (Score:2)
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?? (Score:2, Funny)
If I could only find my Missing Piece.
KFG
Re:So what did he actually do?? (Score:2, Insightful)
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:
Re:And? (Score:2)
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 busti