Vanessa Leggett jailed for integrity

In 1997, Doris Angelton was found shot to death in her home in Houston, Texas. Her husband, Robert, and his brother, Roger, were arrested for the crime. Robert had allegedly gotten Roger to kill Doris to avoid losing millions of dollars in a divorce settlement. Roger committed suicide in 1998 while in jail awaiting trial. Shortly before his suicide, he was interviewed by Vanessa Leggett. He left behind a note confessing to the murder and saying that he had acted alone with the intention of framing his brother Robert so he could extort money from him.

At the time of the murder, Ms Leggett was an English teacher, not a journalist, freelance or otherwise [Incorrect; I found afterwards that she was working on a previous non-fiction book about another murder. --MN], but she took an interest in the case and began to research it with an eye to writing a book on it. In the course of her research, she had an opportunity to interview Roger Angelton in prison, and later turned over copies of that interview to both local and federal authorities.

Now, here comes the kicker.

The aforementioned federal authorities[1] crossed the line of regarding Ms Leggett as a concerned citizen and regarded her instead as someone who could be turned to become a paid informant. They supposedly offered her cash to continue her research, but as their agent. She refused on the grounds that it would violate journalistic integrity vis a vis the confidentiality guaranteed to sources[2].

Shortly afterwards she was served with a grand jury subpoena requiring that she turn over everything. She refused, stating that as a journalist she had a right to protect her sources. The federal prosecutors replied that she had no such rights because she was not a professional journalist -- either de facto nor de jure -- and charged her with contempt. The federal judge who heard the case agreed and ordered her jailed until such time as she released the material or until the grand jury's then current term expired (Oct 12, 2001), which limit is mandated by law. Despite that, the prosecutors reportedly planned to seek a six month extension. Apparently, Ms Leggett could spend up to eighteen months in jail.

The basis for the arguments offered by the federal prosecutors is that Ms Leggett has no credits, credentials, or contract. This is her first book and she has not published any articles, she has no college degree in journalism, nor does she have a contract for publication.

Ergo: she cannot possibly be "a real journalist".

However, she is.

You see, through popular misusage the term "professional" has come to replace the term "credentialed". I, however, maintain that "professional" indicates a mindset or attitude, not that it is indicative of accreditation. There are all kinds of accredited journeymen in every walk of life who are unprofessional, sloppy, incompetent, malfeasant boobs. There are also those who strive to attain the highest possible heights of a field's standards who have no glorified toilet paper adorning their office walls. I am one such. So is Vanessa Leggett.

I am a creative-fiction writer. Unlike Ms Leggett, I have, as of this writing, some twenty-eight publication credits. My total income from my series of humourous short stories is fifty dollars American. Which remuneration was offered by the editor of the limited edition magazine primarily to defray mailing costs back when I had to submit in hard copy. I have, as I mention in this site's introductory pages, three 40,000 word manuscripts, and seven 80,000 word manuscripts, all of which are unpublished as of this writing. I have never taken a writing course in a classroom. Yet, I considered myself a de facto writer from the day I decided to start writing seriously.

How could I do that? Professionalism.

You see, way back when I was an army goon I went to trade training school, and the instructors there told us on day one: From this moment on you are medics and will think of yourselves as such; not as someone who is going to be a medic, but as someone who is a medic.

When I decided to become a writer, I adopted the same mindset. I took it upon myself to become not only someone who scribbles down words to try to make amusing stories, but also to study and to expand my knowledge of language, grammar, and writing issues.

I believe beyond any shadow of doubt that Vanessa Leggett did the same when she decided to become a journalist and non-fiction writer.

When she awoke the fateful morning the Angelton murder case drew her attention and she decided to look into it as a journalist, she could only have taken upon herself in a professional manner all of the perogatives, ethics, and burdens accorded the credentialed journalist.

I believe that beyond any shadow of a doubt because she is suffering for her ethical beliefs and refuses to compromise them.

It is this mindset that makes Vanessa Leggett a professional -- a professional in the true sense of the word.

Now, it seems to me that this case is disturbing on a number of levels. First, there is the assumption by the court that they have the authority to deny someone professional recognition because that person is not credentialed. This is disturbing because it implies that they can set a "matter of degree" by which you can be permitted journalistic perogatives or have them stripped from you[3-1]. This issue is the central theme of the Student Press Law Center web site. This organization holds that even a student journalist in a high school enjoys the full, first amendment protection accorded to accredited journalists who work for news services.

A secondary issue arising from this one, is the possible ramifications this rights violation is likely to have on the journalistic medium in its entirety. Which issue is examined by Jonathan Roeder at www.libertad-prensa.org.

The second level at which this case is disturbing is that such a process can be used to violate a person's Miranda right to remain silent and his fifth amendment right to not be made to incriminate himself. Which is a point made in the op/ed piece in the Civil Liberties section at About.com.

A third level is the possible opening up of the news media to Big Brother law enforcement[3-2]. With a law in the pipeline that will make it illegal to blow the whistle on the government by leaking "classified" information, this creates two issues of unconsitutionality. First: it will make the government unaccountable to the people by allowing it to simply classify any information it needs to, to affect a cover up; Second: any person who blows the whistle will have been legislated a priori into criminality. What does that have to do with the news services?

Who do you think whistle blowers go to?

Now, try to imagine a state in which the reporters who cover the whistle blowing are held complicit in a federal crime for protecting the confidentiality of those whistle blowers.

Even in Zambia[4], a country still groping with the concept of a free press, The Post says of the Leggett case: "This needs to be denounced because repression is repression. Period. It doesn't matter where it is committed. And it deserves condemnation."

Personally, I think Vanessa Leggett should be freed, and her persecutors (not prosecutors) should be jailed. Jailed for a concerted effort to violate guaranteed civil liberties. At the very least, this kind of action smacks of incompetence, sloppiness, and malfeasance. In short: it's unprofessional.

Footnotes:

[1] Which branch, exactly, was not disclosed in any of the articles or sites I've perused; I'm assuming DOJ as the authorities identified as federal prosecutors are also investigating Robert Angelton for racketeering. The op/ed piece at About.com allows as to how it might have been the F.B.I. [Since I wrote this piece and the above footnote, I've seen a few sites that specifically target the F.B.I.; however, I'm not sure how much credibility to grant the assertions. --MN]
Return to place in text

[2] Which confidentiality is protected by Supreme Court rulings. [Also since I wrote this piece and the above footnote, I've seen it written that thirty-one of the U.S. states do not have shield laws to protect journalistic freedoms; Texas, with it's lynch-mob-justice mentality, being one of them. --MN]
Return to place in text

[3-1] This point is explored in depth in an op/ed piece by Michael Ventura of the Austin Chronicle.
[3-2] Ventura covers the Big Brother aspect as well.
Return to place in text for footnote 3-1
Return to place in text for footnote 3-2

[4] See the article linked to the entry in the chronology for 25 July, 2001
Return to place in text

  Return to Chronology 20 Jul 2001; 21 Nov 2001; 02 Jan 2002; 04 Jan 2002

"R Clayton McKee"
To: bardroom2@tantech.com
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 20:03:41 -0600
Subject: Re: [BR-2] Vanessa Leggett released
Reply-to: bardroom2@tantech.com

> [It is my understanding that they could also now bring
> Ms. Leggett up on charges of criminal obstruction.
> Technically, either course of action would be
> perfectly legal. It would stink to high heavens, but
> still be perfectly legal. Only immoral, unethical, a
> miscarriage of justice, an abuse of authority, and a
> violation of the spirit of double jeopardy, but not of
> the letter of the law. --MN]

This is Texas. TPTB[1] want info (they don't know quite WHAT info it is they want but they don't think they have everything), and although they're not sure what it is they don't have, or what it is they want, they think perhaps there's a possibility person or persons unknown might or might not have spilled it to Vanessa.

Since this would indicate that person or persons unknown might actually be insufficiently terrified of our Justice System, and since Vanessa PERSISTS in believing that the Constitution actually means what it says rather than what Chuck Neandarthal, the duly elected District Attorney <he was Hanging Johnny Holmes' designated successor, btw> says it means, Vanessa must be reeducated.

Of course nobody knows what Vanessa knows that the Forces of Good And Righteousness don't, since the aforementioned FoGaR don't even know what it is that they don't know, but still... Vanessa Does Not Love Big Brother. This is thoughtcrime and must be suppressed for the Greater Good of Chuck's re-election campaign.

Welcome to Texas. Mind your neck in that noose.

Albest, Clayton

---
R.Clayton McKee http://www.rcmckee.com
Freelance PhotoJournalist

[1: TPTB is an acronym for The Powers That Be; it is most commonly used by conspiracy theorists, but sometimes also by those who question authority. --MN]