* * * * *
                                        
                              This never happened.
                                        
> On an unspecified day last week an employee of a federal agency that cannot
> be revealed delivered a document that cannot be identified to a company
> that cannot be named seeking information that cannot be discussed.
> 
> The aforementioned federal agent left the unidentified document with an
> employee of the unnamed company. That employee then called the owner, who
> must remain anonymous, to inform him that the document that could not be
> identified sought information that could not be discussed. The owner who
> must remain anonymous instructed the employee to deliver the unidentified
> document to a lawyer whose name is protected by attorney-client privilege.
> 
> The lawyer whose name is protected by attorney-client privilege examined
> the unidentified document and then reviewed the information that could not
> be discussed with the owner who must remain anonymous.
> 
> With the approval of the owner who must remain anonymous, the lawyer whose
> name is protected by attorney-client privilege contacted a U.S. (United
> States) attorney who demanded that his identity be concealed.
> 
> The U.S. attorney who demanded that his identity be concealed then claimed
> the owner who must remain anonymous violated a law that could not be
> disclosed and faced arrest for charges that could not be specified because
> he had referred to the document that cannot be identified in an article for
> a certain, but unnamed, web site.
> 
> The lawyer whose name is protected by attorney-client privilege argued that
> his client could not be charged under the undisclosed law because he had
> been acting as a journalist at the time of the alleged publication and not
> as the owner of the company that cannot be named. He had, in fact, learned
> of the existence of the document that cannot be identified from a third-
> party, who was not named, and was not aware of its exact contents because
> he had not seen or read the document and, therefore, was not aware of the
> exact contents that cannot be discussed.
> 
> The U.S. attorney who demanded his identity be concealed consulted with
> others who names are classified and concluded that the owner who must
> remain anonymous walked a fine line between legal and illegal and would not
> face arrest for violating a law that could not be disclosed on charges that
> could not be specified.
> 
> So walking this fine line of justice allowed the owner who must remain
> anonymous to avoid confinement at an institution at an unknown location for
> an unspecified length of time.
> 
> In exchange for his freedom, the owner who must remain anonymous agreed to
> write a “clarification” of what happened, following the guidelines for
> publication laid down by the Bush administration.
> 
> Which is what you just read.
> 

“Telling the ‘approved” story [1]”

Nothing to see here. Move along. Nothing to see.

> Now that's a problem. I own the company that hosts Capitol Hill Blue. So,
> in effect, the feds want me to turn over information on myself and not tell
> myself that I'm doing it. You'd think they'd know better.
> 

“Bush declares war on freedom of the press [2]”

Of course, this never happened. But if it did happen, then President Bush [3]
is in good company (Did President Lincoln suspend the U.S. Constitution?)
[4].

[1] http://www.capitolhillblue.com/blog/2006/03/telling_the_approved_story.
[2] http://www.capitolhillblue.com/blog/2006/03/bush_declares_war_on_freedo
[3] http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html
[4] http://www.civil-/

Email Sean Conner at sean@conman.org

.