Psy-Kosh

Huh, this whole thing makes me wonder to what extent the constitutionality of gag orders themselves have been challenged in the courts, especially these long term ones.

(note, what I'm about to say next is NOT a hint/suggestion for you to do anything. You've already done way more than most of us in fighting this nastiness. It's more just "any lawyers in the house want to tell me if my reasoning is right?")

In principle, if you violated the gag orders (or even way back when, rather than taking the gov't to court yourself, simply blatantly said "nope, I'm violating your request, screw you"), then thus when put on trial you yourself excersized your right to a jury trial... wouldn't that effectively destroy the gov'ts ability to use secret evidence in the matter? Because then any evidence that is used would have to be seen by the jury, and you do (I think, IANAL) in a case where you're a criminal defendant unconditionally have a right to a jury trial, right?

ie, by deliberately arranging to become a criminal defendant in this sort of situation, would that allow one to be entirely protected from the insanity of secret evidence?

In general, is there any real precedent or legal principle whatsoever for the us gov't to be able to force someone to keep a canary up or otherwise force someone into speaking a false thing. Not merely a gag order, but forcing false speech?

(ie, based on how things are right now, is it plausible that in the near future a court would force someone to keep posting a canary falsely?)

Actually, why not do both? The Watson team answers the 10 questions... and also could input those ten questions into Watson and give us Watson's answers. :)