In a Wired News article, Declan reports: "In Bell's 1997, plea agreement, he admitted to owning chemicals that could be used to produce Sarin gas and to stink-bombing the carpet outside an IRS office." Yeah, and I own chemicals for making chlorine gas. Sodium hypochlorite solution, and sodium bisulphate. I use these "dangerous" chemicals when I do my laundry, and when I clean my bathroom. I think "chemicals that could be used to produce..." is pretty sleezy journalism, which could describe virtually anything. I think using the word "admitted" in describing a plea bargain taken in lieu of a much longer prison sentence is also pretty sleezy journalism. What were the chemicals in question? Does Bell, outside of documents the government makes him sign, claim to have made the IRS doormat smell bad? Does anyone with a clue think nitric acid is a ominous chemical for a chemist to own? I'm really getting tired of Jim Bell articles whose tone suggests that despite the egregious mistreatment of Mr. Bell, the government apprehended him just in the nick of time, before he killed millions with homemade weapons of mass destruction. Bell's Common Law Court was political theatre, his Assassination Politics essays satirical commentary on political accountability, and his documentation of smart-assed IRS employees consumer activism. Aside from not giving his government-issued Social Security number to an employer, the entire compendium of alleged Jim Bell crimes is little more than one of IRS Agent Jeff Gordon's more extreme masturbation fantasies. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 09:40:34AM -0800, Eric Cordian wrote:
What were the chemicals in question? Does Bell, outside of documents the government makes him sign, claim to have made the IRS doormat smell bad?
If I remember correctly, the substance in question is "mercaptan", and it is used as an additive to natural gas to make gas leaks distinctive and noticeable. I don't remember whether or not Jim has taken credit for the stink-bombing in a non-coercive environment. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles@netbox.com PO Box 897 Oakland CA 94604
Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> writes:
Bell was not coerced into taking the plea agreement; if anything, he seems to have more mental resources to fight the system than other defendants I have interviewed.
Unless the plea agreement specifies a sentence equal to the upper range that would likely be applied after a conviction was won, it is not difficult to infer that the plea agreement is being signed in order to lock-in a shorter sentence, with the accuracy of the government's account of the alleged misdeeds being a lesser consideration. Most plea bargaining, by its very nature, is coercion plain and simple. Just as the common practice of cutting deals in return for testimony the prosecution wants, or deferring sentencing until such testimony has been provided, results in coerced testimony. That the Justice System recognizes the payment of even one penny to a witness as tainting testimony, but looks the other way when years are knocked off sentences in order to secure testimony or agreement to government-authored laundry lists of antisocial acts, is evidence of the degree to which the government values expediency over fairness in processing caseloads. So I repeat my question. Does Jim Bell, aside from signing a statement prepared for him by the government, in order to avoid a much longer sentence, acknowlege annoying the IRS with unpleasant-smelling chemical substances? A "yes" or "no" will suffice. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
At 11:54 AM -0800 11/11/00, Eric Cordian wrote:
Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> writes:
Bell was not coerced into taking the plea agreement; if anything, he seems to have more mental resources to fight the system than other defendants I have interviewed.
Unless the plea agreement specifies a sentence equal to the upper range that would likely be applied after a conviction was won, it is not difficult to infer that the plea agreement is being signed in order to lock-in a shorter sentence, with the accuracy of the government's account of the alleged misdeeds being a lesser consideration.
Most plea bargaining, by its very nature, is coercion plain and simple.
Just as the common practice of cutting deals in return for testimony the prosecution wants, or deferring sentencing until such testimony has been provided, results in coerced testimony.
And, as all of us have commented on many times, there are so many things which are crimes, so many piled-on charges, that Bell could have been facing 20 years in prison for his minor, minor transgressions. Hilary takes bribes and runs a $1000 investment up to $100,000 with inside knowledge. Hilary also hides evidence in a criminal investigation, somewhere in the _private quarters_ of the White House. It mysteriously shows up, part of it, three years later, on a table in the private quarters. And so on. No charges filed. The fix was in. Meanwhile, Jim Bell keeps getting raided, busted, and charged with various bullshit minor transgressions. (As for advocating murder, Hilary was overheard on election night at a party, railing against Ralph Nader for doing what he did. Fine. But she was also overheard saying that "we ought to just have him killed."--I heard this on one of the many talk shows I was listening to, possibly it was Tim Russert or J.D. Haworth on "Imus." Not sure.) As a felon, I appreciate that a raid on my house could probably net enough b.s. evidence to give a rigged court the excuse to sentence me to 20 years and fine me a few million bucks. So many things are now illegal that a prosecutor can "indict a ham sandwich," as the saying goes. And then use the threat of 20 years in prison to coerce nearly any kind of plea bargain, surveillance-state parole, etc. (The whole parole system is another can of worms. Can't have guns, can't use a computer, can't associate with thought criminals, can't read controversial material, probation officer can enter home at any time, various other police state measures. All done because the courts have stacked the deck.) The American legal system is notoriously corrupt. Sure, most of the things which are "illegal" are never actually prosecuted: they are there as bargaining chips to get plea agreements so that prosecutors can get convictions on their scorecards and campaign posters. Police states _like_ it when there are tens of thousands of laws on the books. Little wonder the government seeks to disarm us. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Eric, I invite folks to read the full article at: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,40102,00.html http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/11/11/101218&mode=nested I'm not taking a position on Bell's case. I do need to tell my readers why was locked up earlier, and that seemed a reasonable way to do it. Bell was not coerced into taking the plea agreement; if anything, he seems to have more mental resources to fight the system than other defendants I have interviewed. -Declan On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 09:40:34AM -0800, Eric Cordian wrote:
In a Wired News article, Declan reports:
"In Bell's 1997, plea agreement, he admitted to owning chemicals that could be used to produce Sarin gas and to stink-bombing the carpet outside an IRS office."
Yeah, and I own chemicals for making chlorine gas. Sodium hypochlorite solution, and sodium bisulphate. I use these "dangerous" chemicals when I do my laundry, and when I clean my bathroom.
I think "chemicals that could be used to produce..." is pretty sleezy journalism, which could describe virtually anything. I think using the word "admitted" in describing a plea bargain taken in lieu of a much longer prison sentence is also pretty sleezy journalism.
What were the chemicals in question? Does Bell, outside of documents the government makes him sign, claim to have made the IRS doormat smell bad?
Does anyone with a clue think nitric acid is a ominous chemical for a chemist to own?
I'm really getting tired of Jim Bell articles whose tone suggests that despite the egregious mistreatment of Mr. Bell, the government apprehended him just in the nick of time, before he killed millions with homemade weapons of mass destruction.
Bell's Common Law Court was political theatre, his Assassination Politics essays satirical commentary on political accountability, and his documentation of smart-assed IRS employees consumer activism. Aside from not giving his government-issued Social Security number to an employer, the entire compendium of alleged Jim Bell crimes is little more than one of IRS Agent Jeff Gordon's more extreme masturbation fantasies.
-- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 11:54:44AM -0800, Eric Cordian wrote:
So I repeat my question. Does Jim Bell, aside from signing a statement prepared for him by the government, in order to avoid a much longer sentence, acknowlege annoying the IRS with unpleasant-smelling chemical substances? A "yes" or "no" will suffice.
Eric, I'm not sure, and I don't feel like wasting my Saturday afternoon doing research with little benefit. If you'd actually like to find out the answer instead of wrangling here, you might want to look at the documents that are online. Or ask Jim yourself. -Declan
-- At 02:31 PM 11/11/2000 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I'm not taking a position on Bell's case. I do need to tell my readers why was locked up earlier, and that seemed a reasonable way to do it. Bell was not coerced into taking the plea agreement;
All plea agreements are coercive. The serious charge that the prosecutor threatens the accused with necessarily has some relationship to evidence that the prosecutor possesses, or else it would not be a threat. The alternative lesser charge that the prosecutor offers need have no relationship to the evidence, and usually has no relationship. It is a mere formality. Even in non political cases, there is a strong tendency to make the lesser charge something that is wrong it itself, rather than a lesser form of the more serious charge, to make the lesser charge a crime something where police and prosecution have more support than they have for the more serious charge. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG T76DpThszKKJrrCcPnJOs48j5JDhlfDF9ZnRo3VC 4O4kvplrNHWQ1q3tJVEFxtxt18VXyP0hSmVTx5zoL
participants (5)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Eric Cordian -
Greg Broiles -
James A. Donald -
Tim May