I understand the nature of his argument: he'd like to challenge the warrant to get the CP evidence excluded. He can't, because the warrant is secret; his CP criminal trial judge validated it, but in a normal case, he'd have the chance to evaluate himself.
What I perceived you to have been claiming was that the defendant additionally doesn't know the actual provenance of the evidence. Which computer did it come from? How does he know the FBI didn't simply make it up?
I feel like we're about to argue about the meaning of the word "provenance". I meant it as "where the evidence came from". You mean it as "the legal authority required to collect it". Both uses are valid, but I meant the former.
The law is not being kept secret. The facts supporting the issuance of the warrant and the circumstances of its execution are. That is the causal definition of "where the evidence came from". That in and of itself is evidence.
"I first heard about the defendant's shenanigans when I was attending my support group for compulsive liars, from Joe, the defendant's bitter ex-husband. As I recall he was covered in blood at the time." That is a factual circumstance related to the issuance of the warrant that would be relevant to the case, not just the issuance of the warrant itself.
This is not a difficult distinction, it's one you're trying for whatever reason to ignore.
I understand the nature of his argument: he'd like to challenge the warrant to get the CP evidence excluded. He can't, because the warrant is secret; his CP criminal trial judge validated it, but in a normal case, he'd have the chance to evaluate himself.
What I perceived you to have been claiming was that the defendant additionally doesn't know the actual provenance of the evidence. Which computer did it come from? How does he know the FBI didn't simply make it up?
It's that latter claim that I'm pushing back on.