The Real Bell Issue / Re: Bell, etc
Mike Duvos wrote:
Jim Bell is an example of an individual screwed by the government using overly vague statues for alleged crimes which amounted to little more than a few high school type pranks.
He took names of assholes who harrassed him, gave a made-up number to a few people, and made the IRS doormat smell bad. How much, if any taxes, were evaded as a result of one of these charges isn't even an issue.
The following, from the Columbian, lies at the heart of the real issue that Bell's persecution was all about.
According to the affidavit, Bell came to the attention of the Internal Revenue Service in November when he sent the agency's Ogden (Utah) Service Center a letter asking for a tax refund.
Every year, just before Income Taxes are due, the IRS picks out a few people to unjustly persecute in order to strike fear into the heart of the taxpaying sheeple. They always manage to completely fuck over a variety of citizens in a manner that will generate maximum publicity at that time of year. They always seem to include at least one fairly average citizen who gets everything he owns seized, including bank accounts, etc., over a tax dispute involving nickles and dimes. Those who express outrage over these actions are the IRS's best friend. "They have no right to..." "They are out of control..." "They can do anything they want to you..." This is all music to the IRS's ears. Jim Bell was like manna from heaven for the IRS. It gave them an opportunity to bring down the fascist forces of a wide variety of government agencies to back the IRS's play in this instance. Bell's persecution was not a mistake, it was a loud and clear message to the taxpaying sheeple that they are "a felon under an increasing number of laws," and that the IRS has a plethora of government agencies ready and willing to join them in fucking over anyone who gets out of line. And what is the IRS's definition of "getting out of line?":
According to the affidavit, Bell came to the attention of the Internal Revenue Service in November when he sent the agency's Ogden (Utah) Service Center a letter asking for a tax refund.
Apply for a tax refund and have every real or imagined sin you have ever commited used against you. "A person who asked the IRS for a tax refund, had his home raided today by 20 armed government terrorists from a wide variety of government agencies. "This person who asked for a TAX REFUND has never been proven to have anything to do with DRUGS such as METHAMPHETAMINE, and is not known to be a SPEED FREAK or a DRUG DEALER. As well, government agents investigating the person asking for the TAX REFUND have never found any ILLEGAL DRUGS on his person or property, but the person who asked for the TAX REFUND will be mentioned in connection with DRUGS and METHAMPETAMINE, or SPEED, CRANK, etc., for the rest of his life, every time he "comes to our attention" as a result of asking for a TAX REFUND." I would not doubt that the IRS asked the local newspapers to put a picture on their front page of 20 armed governement terrorists putting guns to the heads of Ma and Pa Bell, with Jim on the ground with a boot at his throat, and a huge headline reading, "MAN ASKS FOR TAX REFUND!" The IRS spends the whole year going after people who they deem to be guilty of tax evasion, and it is usually a fairly boring affair involving accountants and lawyers. The weeks preceeding the date taxes are due to be filed are reserved for high-profile cases which the sheeple can easily recognize as persecution by a heartless agency with supreme power at their disposal. The real issue in Bell's case is not just persecution, but easily recognizable persecution. Otherwise, the whole Bell affair would be pointless. Perhaps, upon sentencing, we will see a headline, "MAN WHO ASKED FOR TAX REFUND IMPRISONED FOR HIGH SCHOOL PRANKS!" TruthMonger
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:30 AM 8/19/97 +0200, Anonymous wrote:
Jim Bell was like manna from heaven for the IRS. It gave them an opportunity to bring down the fascist forces of a wide variety of government agencies to back the IRS's play in this instance. Bell's persecution was not a mistake, it was a loud and clear message to the taxpaying sheeple that they are "a felon under an increasing number of laws," and that the IRS has a plethora of government agencies ready and willing to join them in fucking over anyone who gets out of line.
It would have turned into a mistake if Bell had had balls to match his mouth. The Feds hate to lose prosecutions like this because loses encourage the activists in the population to resist. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBM/m4eIVO4r4sgSPhAQEHEAP9EObRrHNl02FuYbliKI/nxDLVHonZScmg j9kah/zAAB8o2Yvs7Gq+8pnrVWMVuZTMD9uO9aQrvsv0xL1vmk4+STyn2GCUmDya PNIE85fslohkBEgnZpJi9DyjBmkk2rhmTu3uhzwi84/jhGUJqNErB9dxswSJSKg6 vrmWXjO2p6I= =BHMM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 11:21 AM 8/19/97 -0700, Tim May wrote:
So, I disagree with Duncan's apparent point that it's too bad the Bell case didn't go to trial. I'm convinced Bell would have been convicted on most or all charges. Hardly a test case for anything important.
But the charges were minor stuff. Under the Federal sentencing guidelines he wouldn't have gotten much if convicted. And I think that he had a good defense to some of the charges. Selective prosecution and no crime for example. The collecting of the names and addresses of government employees is not clearly illegal. In some cases, it is public information and he could argue that he intended to organize demonstrations against them. It is also not clear how they found out about the stink bomb. That could possibly have been challanged. The charges were fuzzy and minor. Those sorts of things make them easy for a strong advocate to ridicule in court. Clearly a waste of the taxpayer's money. Their nature smells of political prosecution. Another line of defense. He could have been aggressive and fought instead of wimping out. Lots of people have faced much more serious crimes and won. It's not like Jim had anything better to do. In such cases, an aggressive show of strength of character is best. Weakness invites oppression. A rule that you - Tim - seem to follow in general too. DCF "Shit Happens" -- Slogan on the Cat Hat worn by the lead defendant in the Princeton Partners Insider Trading case during negotiations with the Feds. Court of appeals threw out his conviction. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBM/oWoIVO4r4sgSPhAQHnXAP9HqPlg597qAyz2KBtC1QwQfqSFeNYBgPd Wu8MixBwBY4g72gLwfxW72vyaHjfKAK1q1Y9Ya8fYqOiqNYdZCb0ePdAhgpnKANc wLphhfc/kpx9hVSm3r7looVHqtW343GwMYHMxaSGCc9SnChnU13hsmOVeGQyA4Gj fb5jMAESNr0= =SCZ8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 03:47 PM 8/19/97 -0700, Tim May wrote:
My bigger fear, and no doubt Jim will someday read this and perhaps take umbrage at my comments here, is that this several-month "debriefing" period is where the Feds are collecting as much incriminating information against some of us as they can, perhaps with an eye toward hitting various of us with RICO charges, sedition, etc.
Though we aren't an organization. If they couldn't win a sedition case against the isolationists during WWII or the White Separatists in Alabama(?) a few years ago, they won't be able to get us. RICO also seems unlikely because of our disorganization and lack of overt actions.
If I were to be arrested and held without bail--perhaps because of the "arms cache" and "chemicals" the news media would breathlessly report--I rather suspect my aggressiveness would fall on deaf ears.
Don't worry. If you were busted it would cause a real stink. Remember Operation Sun Devil. The Feds really lost it. Aggressiveness doesn't just mean publicity. It means strategy at trial as well. They have to try you and that would be risky for them because we all have an easy First Amendment argument to hammer them with. The List is defined by its expression and not by anything else so attacks on the list are ipso facto attacks on expression. In fact, Ruby Ridge and Waco are why the Feds are tiptoeing around any similar "raids." The publicity there really hurt them. Their trial losses in the insider trading cases of the 1980's (they lost all but one case that went to trial) are why such prosecutions dropped off. They prefer cases they can win. And note that the current SC is probably stronger on the 1st than any court in our history. Tough row to hoe for prosecutors. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBM/swoYVO4r4sgSPhAQGCPAQAqsi0h6zgm8xfsvZhBzNb/uXDTB+CWjyj yZk4USXIpBrESor7XPht14EKr3Ue+b2LWjoaH8kF5CocBUoDXhQ+9v6Fwcnwn9qE k9EfFzLxiL05L1CUD6Ux8y3wKRt/TmX82CMTeBKiGDUGl3d+TLV8MnashZRkSXm4 +v89fjbrooU= =s/PF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Don't worry. If you were busted it would cause a real stink. Remember Operation Sun Devil. The Feds really lost it. Aggressiveness doesn't just mean publicity. It means strategy at trial as well. They have to try you and that would be risky for them because we all have an easy First Amendment argument to hammer them with. The List is defined by its expression and not by anything else so attacks on the list are ipso facto attacks on expression.
From my point of view, operation sundevil was never about arrests or prosecuting criminals, it was about scaring the shit out of 15 year olds.
First, many of the people raided under operation sundevil already KNEW that they were going to be raided, or at least suspected. I myself was informed, by some friends, some time before the raid that there was a DNR on my phone line. I also recieved an anonymous phone call "warning" me to stay away from "hackers". Second, the secret service agents actualy preforming the raid seemed to view it as an elaborate joke after the figured out that the threat to national security or whatever was 14 years old, in fact, the only agent there that seemed to take it seriously was a postal inspector who solemly informed me " your going to jail for a long time buddy" as the secret service agents chatted about vaious trips to russia guarding reagan and complimented me on how smart i must be. Third, their cell phones didnt work, and after calling the office to get them to DTMF decode numbers in my speed dial, they never erased the redial on my phone, leaving their office number there for me to DTMF decode myself. They seemed to ignore things that actualy WERE evidence and took things like calulators and batteries ( they were really excited by the fact that i had loads of batteries because early blue boxes used loads of power and you needed to change batteries frequently). My lawyer couldnt get ANY information about the investigation and i never recieved any calls and was never even questioned, dont you think that if they were interested in breaking a worldwide conspiricy of hackers they would have at least asked me a few questions? (besides what i used all the batteries for). In any case, there is a HUGE difference between raiding the houses of some 14-15 year old computer geeks who actualy think they will be shot when they are woken up by a secret service agent with a shotgun in their face and still believe that an arrest for " computer crimes" will ruin their life and at best has their very very irate parents to arrange for their defence and raiding the house of an adult who knows what the effects of their actions will be, which in computer crimes is just alot of attention, little jail time, and a fat job when you get out. I almost wish i had gone to trial, I would never have had to go to college to get a CS degree. BTW. about 3 years ago I recieved a call from the NYC secret service field office , I thought at first they had finaly decided to arrest me. But what in fact happened is that they decided to return all the computer equipment siezed in the raid. They returned 2 huge boxes of now obsolete computers and peripherals , complete with SS evidence tags saying " Location : Bedroom , Sex: Male" , and SS disks in the 5 1/4 floppy drives to potect the heads". Its a good thing they never realized that I gave my then brand new 20 mb external hard drive to a friend with all the real evidence on it untill after the raid. They also informed me that the investigation was still underway and I should wait for further contact.
At 8:15 AM -0700 8/19/97, Duncan Frissell wrote:
At 09:30 AM 8/19/97 +0200, Anonymous wrote:
Jim Bell was like manna from heaven for the IRS. It gave them an opportunity to bring down the fascist forces of a wide variety of government agencies to back the IRS's play in this instance. Bell's persecution was not a mistake, it was a loud and clear message to the taxpaying sheeple that they are "a felon under an increasing number of laws," and that the IRS has a plethora of government agencies ready and willing to join them in fucking over anyone who gets out of line.
It would have turned into a mistake if Bell had had balls to match his mouth. The Feds hate to lose prosecutions like this because loses encourage the activists in the population to resist.
One lesson, or reminder, I take from the Bell matter is this: Avoid doing stupid and petty things like using multiple Social Security numbers, evading taxes, and releasing stink bombs into government (or other) offices. (These are things Bell has pled on, as I recall the transcripts, so there's little doubt about them. And had he pled not guilty and gone to trial, apparently the evidence would've convicted him on most of the charges. Perhaps this is why he pled.) The constitutional protections for speech, free association, etc. don't have a lot of use for these charges (unless one can successfully mount a major, major, earthshattering challenge to the basic constitutionality of the Income Tax system itself, something which has consistently failed over the decades). They got Al Capone for tax evasion, not his other criminal activities. I'm pretty scrupulous about filing correct tax returns, much as I dislike taxes in general (and uses to which my taxes are put in particular). This is because some "tax protestors" have gotten fairly stiff (multi-year) sentences to Terminal Island, a federal prison in California, for the "crime" of evading a few tens of thousands of dollars. This while less vocal, less activist evaders have either been given a chance to settle (sometimes for nickels on the dollar) their outstanding tax balance, or have received suspended sentences, or have gone to "country club" prisons in Pleasanton, Lompoc, etc. (these are the California facilities I'm familiar with, through news reports, understand). I don't have much doubt that if the Feds could nail me for a serious violation of the tax or reporting laws, e.g., if I used multiple SS numbers in various jobs, they would. But so long as they can't, they won't. So, I disagree with Duncan's apparent point that it's too bad the Bell case didn't go to trial. I'm convinced Bell would have been convicted on most or all charges. Hardly a test case for anything important. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
At 2:56 PM -0700 8/19/97, Duncan Frissell wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
At 11:21 AM 8/19/97 -0700, Tim May wrote:
So, I disagree with Duncan's apparent point that it's too bad the Bell case didn't go to trial. I'm convinced Bell would have been convicted on most or all charges. Hardly a test case for anything important.
But the charges were minor stuff. Under the Federal sentencing guidelines he wouldn't have gotten much if convicted. And I think that he had a good defense to some of the charges. Selective prosecution and no crime for example. The collecting of the names and addresses of government employees is not clearly illegal. In some cases, it is public information and he could argue that he intended to organize demonstrations against them. It is also
From my reading, by limiting the scope to the points above the Feds had a
I dont' believe the "collecting the names..." point made it into the final charges, but I could be wrong. My recollection is that the three main charges were: using multiple phony SS numbers to evade taxes, failure to file and pay taxes in the required manner, and the stink bomb charges. Nor did any of the things about poisoning water supplies or dropping carbon fibers down airshafts make it into the final charges, that I recall. pretty strong case. As to whether Bell could claim he was being prosecuted because of his views, I'll get to that below.
not clear how they found out about the stink bomb. That could possibly have been challanged.
There is the testimony of one of his former friends that Bell claimed he had stinkbombed a lawyer he didn't like a few years back, apparently using the same mercaptin used (it appears) in the recent case. And didn't Alan Olsen say on this list that Jim had talked about such stinkbombs? It seems reasonable that a jury would believe Bell had ordered mercaptin, had told others he had used it in the past, and that an attack on a Portland IRS office followed his altercation over taxes with them by a few weeks. Were I on the jury, I think I'd think he did it. But, hey, maybe "jury nullification" could get him off.
The charges were fuzzy and minor. Those sorts of things make them easy for a strong advocate to ridicule in court. Clearly a waste of the taxpayer's money. Their nature smells of political prosecution. Another line of defense.
No doubt a Gerry Spence could do this, but his court-appointed lawyer was most likely oblivious to such tactics, and was anxious to plead him out. As we all saw in the McVeigh case, court appointed lawyers really are not working for their putative clients. My bigger fear, and no doubt Jim will someday read this and perhaps take umbrage at my comments here, is that this several-month "debriefing" period is where the Feds are collecting as much incriminating information against some of us as they can, perhaps with an eye toward hitting various of us with RICO charges, sedition, etc. (Now _this_ would be a high-risk tactic for the Feds to take, as we who are charged might fight back hard, and actually win. Depends on the climate. If they link us to supplying strong crypto to various freedom fighters, and to money launderers (remember Anguilla), etc., then maybe a jury would convict. Not on sedition, perhaps, as this is hard to prove, but on RICO charges.)
He could have been aggressive and fought instead of wimping out. Lots of people have faced much more serious crimes and won. It's not like Jim had anything better to do.
In such cases, an aggressive show of strength of character is best. Weakness invites oppression. A rule that you - Tim - seem to follow in general too.
Well, Bell was about as extreme and aggressive as one can get...and yet.... If I were to be arrested and held without bail--perhaps because of the "arms cache" and "chemicals" the news media would breathlessly report--I rather suspect my aggressiveness would fall on deaf ears. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Tim May wrote:
There is the testimony of one of his former friends that Bell claimed he had stinkbombed a lawyer he didn't like a few years back, apparently using the same mercaptin used (it appears) in the recent case. And didn't Alan Olsen say on this list that Jim had talked about such stinkbombs? It seems reasonable that a jury would believe Bell had ordered mercaptin, had told others he had used it in the past, and that an attack on a Portland IRS office followed his altercation over taxes with them by a few weeks. Were I on the jury, I think I'd think he did it.
Actually it was mentioned to me by a freind who has known Jim for many years. (Someone who I know well enough to trust his word on the matter.) The only incident he mentioned was the one with the lawyer's office, not the IRS "incident".
But, hey, maybe "jury nullification" could get him off.
Only if an AP bot were used. ]:>
The charges were fuzzy and minor. Those sorts of things make them easy for a strong advocate to ridicule in court. Clearly a waste of the taxpayer's money. Their nature smells of political prosecution. Another line of defense.
No doubt a Gerry Spence could do this, but his court-appointed lawyer was most likely oblivious to such tactics, and was anxious to plead him out. As we all saw in the McVeigh case, court appointed lawyers really are not working for their putative clients.
Of course not. Look who is paying the bills.
My bigger fear, and no doubt Jim will someday read this and perhaps take umbrage at my comments here, is that this several-month "debriefing" period is where the Feds are collecting as much incriminating information against some of us as they can, perhaps with an eye toward hitting various of us with RICO charges, sedition, etc.
I am certain they can. But it has become obvious that if they want to get me on some phoney charge they will be able to do so no matter how I live or act. Better to be true to my beliefs that to act like a good little sheeple.
(Now _this_ would be a high-risk tactic for the Feds to take, as we who are charged might fight back hard, and actually win. Depends on the climate. If they link us to supplying strong crypto to various freedom fighters, and to money launderers (remember Anguilla), etc., then maybe a jury would convict. Not on sedition, perhaps, as this is hard to prove, but on RICO charges.)
The reason that I believe you will probably not get the "knock in the night" is that you have the money and resources to fight them off. They are more likely to go after the "soft targets" of the semi-employed ranter who just happens to step on the wrong toes.
He could have been aggressive and fought instead of wimping out. Lots of people have faced much more serious crimes and won. It's not like Jim had anything better to do.
In such cases, an aggressive show of strength of character is best. Weakness invites oppression. A rule that you - Tim - seem to follow in general too.
Well, Bell was about as extreme and aggressive as one can get...and yet....
On the list maybe, but his real life actions were not as aggresive as maybe the government would like to claim. He could have made a much bigger stink than he did before getting nailed by the IRS.
If I were to be arrested and held without bail--perhaps because of the "arms cache" and "chemicals" the news media would breathlessly report--I rather suspect my aggressiveness would fall on deaf ears.
And if they had you in a cell with the implied threat of moving you to a tougher environment if you did not cooperate, you might cop a plea just to get the hell out of there. I am starting to believe that the reason that Jim got as pounded on as he did was because he did not have the financial resources to fight back. alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.
At 09:30 AM 8/19/97 +0200, you wrote:
The following, from the Columbian, lies at the heart of the Every year, just before Income Taxes are due, the IRS picks out a few people to unjustly persecute in order to strike fear into the heart of the taxpaying sheeple.
Sounds plausible enough.
Apply for a tax refund and have every real or imagined sin you have ever commited used against you. "A person who asked the IRS for a tax refund, had his home raided today by 20 armed government terrorists from a wide variety of government agencies. "This person who asked for a TAX REFUND has never been proven to have anything to do with DRUGS such as METHAMPHETAMINE, and is not known to be a SPEED FREAK or a DRUG DEALER. As well, government agents investigating the person asking for the TAX REFUND have never found any ILLEGAL DRUGS on his person or property, but the person who asked for the TAX REFUND will be mentioned in connection with DRUGS and METHAMPETAMINE, or SPEED, CRANK, etc., for the rest of his life, every time he "comes to our attention" as a result of asking for a TAX REFUND."
The IRS (Internal Revenue Stealers) enjoys making examples of people who dare to defy the income theft.
The IRS spends the whole year going after people who they deem to be guilty of tax evasion, and it is usually a fairly boring affair involving accountants and lawyers.
The blood-sucking variety. /===========================================================\ Help win the fight against weak encryption! Break RC5-56 -----------|> http://rc5.distributed.net/ <|------------- Member of Starbase XII RC5 Team Free secure e-mail, a reality? Yes! Pretty Good Privacy available at http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html \===========================================================/
participants (4)
-
Alan -
Duncan Frissell -
nobody＠REPLAY.COM -
Tim May