So much for the Nancy Grace angle, eh! Padilla didn't get much coverage past the initial arrest. If there is no public activity in court, the media has nothing to report.
On your information, I too read the stuff at lewrockwell. The boy had court-appointed counsel the day after he was apprehended. His mother was forbidden to communicate with him for a three-week period, and was not given a "reason" for the firewall.
On the point of "it could take months for an indictment to be issued," a criminal defendant is usually arraigned within days of apprehension. A delay of 60 days is very noteworthy. It's not possible to prepare a proper formal defense until there is a formal charge. Still, the question remains hypothetical at this point, because the evidence is equivocal on whether or not he's been formally charged. I think he hasn't, which is the attribute what drives the current news. But it's possible he has all of the formal charges, and is just attempting to discredit the government via media.
The April 29 story is starting to spread on the internet, and according to that lewrockwell page, a hearing is scheduled for May 27. The story may attract more investigation and more independent commentary as a result of those developments. I'm going to file it in the back of my mind, and endeavor to obtain an accurate impression of what happened. I think the USA PATRIOT Act and MCA provide a dangerous combination of "law," for one reason because they give the supposedly independent courts so little room/basis to object to a factually unfounded/unjustified detention.
Not if he's in jail it won't. That's a speedy trial violation. The indictment has to issue thirty days from arrest under federal law.
ROTFL.