- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Re:
by John Young 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

The joke about TCM is that this is a spoof like Tim May used to post. If not a spoof better not go there. At 04:59 PM 1/12/2014, you wrote: >Can you elaborate a bit about the panic onion? >Why is reachability and not content the indicator of the service's health? > > >On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 12:32 PM, John Young ><<mailto:jya@pipeline.com>jya(a)pipeline.com> wrote: >Welcome back, TCM. You've been missed. > > > > >At 12:46 PM 1/12/2014, you wrote: >So I am organizing a lottery, I think you are all familiar with the concept. >There is currently one death pool with multiple people in it. > >The pool accepts bitcoin and litecoin, and >accurate death predictions will be rewarded 75% >of the funds. The other 25% will stay in the pool for the remaining names. > >You can find more information at: ><http://lotteryd77nqcmtc.onion>http://lotteryd77nqcmtc.onion >Or clearnet: ><http://lotteryd77nqcmtc.onion.lu>http://lotteryd77nqcmtc.onion.lu > > > > > > >-- > > >Rich Jones > ><https://openwatch.net>OpenWatch is a global >citizen news network. Download OpenWatch ><https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/openwatch-social-muckraking/id642680756?ls=…>for >iOS and ><https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.ale.openwatch&hl=en>for >Android!

1 0

Tor now built into DD-WRT
by John L Grubbs 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

Looks like Tor is now included as of build 23220. No GUI as of yet.

2 1

Tamper-Evident electronic device: (was: [Cryptography] Dumb idea: open-source hardware USB key for crypto)
by Jim Bell 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

From: stef <s(a)ctrlc.hu> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 02:35:39AM -0500, grarpamp wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Bill Cox <waywardgeek(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > I've been noodling the idea of a USB stick designed in a way that we >> > can trust the crypto that goes on there. It's a hard problem, but > >> there seems to be some guidelines that could help: >as hinted earlier in the pcp/pbp discussion, i'm working on such a beast: > https://www.ctrlc.hu/~stef/PITCHFORK.pdf >>> Anyway, it's just a fun idea. I'd love to have such a >>> device in my pocket. There's a lot of applications I can think of >>> that could benefit from it, from electronic voting to >>> microtransactions. >PITCHFORK will allow you to develop your own extensions, so indeed i expect a >lot of experiments and innovation if this gets off. >currently some of my code has licensing problems and needs to be reimplemented >before publication :/ >> Many of these open hardware ideas come down to the fab level... >indeed, there's a lot of trust in things we have limited resources to >validate. turtles all the way down. One thing that's needed is a way to determine if said device has been tampered with or replaced. I suggest that such devices contain a pc board with a few (16 or so?) solder-bumps in a bare area (easily made using surface-mount soldering techniques) onto which would be pressed a carbon-fiber weave of cloth, itself impregnated with epoxy adhesive and held in place (over the solder bumps) until the epoxy is cured. Each connection between a bump and the carbon-fiber weave would have an impossible (?) to replicate resistance. Each solder bump would connect to a lead of a chip, said chip containing analog switches and an A/D convertor. In operation, the resistance between these solder-bumps would be measured by the chip; also, perhaps two or more different solder bumps could be driven by the chip to different voltages (Vcc and Gnd), and the voltages of the rest of the solder bumps would be measured. These as-measured values could be transmitted through the USB (possibly in encrypted or hashed form) and stored by a connected computer. The entire device would be potted in a clear potting material, probably clear epoxy. Any tampering would be automatically detectable electronically, and it would be exceedingly difficult to replicate the results of the large number of possible separate measurements which could be made. There would be (16x15/2)= 120 two-terminal resistance values; Each such measured value could be accompanied by measuring the voltage of the other 14 terminals, or 120 x 14 = 1680 values. Jim Bell

1 0

Re:FBI trap?
by David - 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

Not meant to be a trap, but your concerns regarding the tracability of bitcoin are correct. There is currently no way to add to the list. I intent to make a second, much larger pool which will include 'those in congress, the presidency and the judiciary who carry the NSA's water'. And a third pool containing corporate. I am open for suggestions. I will listen to opinions about who should be on the list.

1 0

FBI trap?
by Anonymous Remailer (austria) 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

The recent posting by david advertising both a hidden and a real world address may reflect a growing awareness of either the american FBI or of the NSA TAO of constructing digital evidence trails for conspiracy to murder public officials.. I DONT trust onion.lu nor do I trust gandi.net not to log all queries besides they DONT have a way to add to the list, the richly deserving but unamed wizards behind the curtains.. those in congress, the presidency and the judiciary who carry the NSA's water. Such as our current veep who began very visibly in 1991 to support the NSA with SB266 and finishing off with the atrocity that is bluffdale utah

1 0

Twister: P2P microblogging platform
by Jesse Taylor 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

I came across this the other day: /"This paper presents a proposal of a new P2P microblogging platform that is scalable, resilient to failures and attacks, does not depend on any central authority for user registration, provides easy-to-use encrypted private communication and authenticated public posts. The architecture tries to leverage from existing and proven P2P technologies such as Bittorrent and Bitcoin as much possible. Privacy is also one of the primary design concerns, no one should be able to see the user's IP or their followers unless he explicitly shares such information. The proposed platform is comprised of three mostly independent overlay networks. The first provides distributed user registration and authentication and is based on the Bitcoin protocol. The second one is a Distributed Hash Table (DHT) overlay network providing key/value storage for user resources and tracker location for the third network. The last network is a collection of possibly disjoint "swarms" of followers, based on the Bittorrent protocol, which can be used for efficient near-instant notification delivery to many users. [...] "/ -- "twister - a P2P microblogging platform <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.7152v1.pdf>", Miguel Freitas Personally, I'm impressed by the creative application of Bitcoin/Bitorrent/DHT protocols to the problem of private/anonymous communication ... and the software looks very clean and usable as well. I also like that it's based on P2P technology unlike solutions such as Diaspora, which still require trusting third parties with personal data ... Thoughts? --Jesse Taylor <http://www.interference.cc>

3 2

Re: [Cryptography] Dumb idea: open-source hardware USB key for crypto
by grarpamp 11 Jan '14

11 Jan '14

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Bill Cox <waywardgeek(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I've been noodling the idea of a USB stick designed in a way that we > can trust the crypto that goes on there. It's a hard problem, but > there seems to be some guidelines that could help: > > - Open source hardware - schematics and everything including board > layout need to be free > - No ICs that could be compromised. Any CPU would have to be a > soft-core in an FPGA, with an open-source design > - FPGA configuration memory both readable and writable over a JTAG port > - External flash program memory also read/writeable through JTAG > - Reasonable hardware RNG where every node in the circuit can be probed > - Signal isolation from the PC: solid state relays would swap a simple > memory back and forth between the PC side and USB stick side. Maybe > power draw should be randomized to obscure any processing going on. > RF shielding should cover the USB stick. No other communication > should be possible. This is similar to an air gap. > - A community supported audit trail verifying produced USB keys are secure > > The idea still has issues. Where would I be able to store secret keys > securely such that an attacker who stole my USB stick could not > recover it? Anyway, it's just a fun idea. I'd love to have such a > device in my pocket. There's a lot of applications I can think of > that could benefit from it, from electronic voting to > microtransactions. As one security expert once said in an > electronic-voting discussion I followed, no machine ever connected to > the Internet has proven secure. Could we make such a beast? I > probably don't really have time to work on it, but if a group were > building it, I'd participate. Many of these open hardware ideas come down to the fab level... can you examine (and trust) the fab process. Sure, publish all your schematics, VHDL, die masks, etc. But unless some number of random people can routinely make unannounced access-all-areas verification visits to the fab to verify those masks are the ones in use, it's moot. Or unless they can pull unannounced random samples and decap and analyse them, it's moot. That's why I've previously suggested people get together to making hardware RNG's out of discrete components... you don't have those worries then. I agree with the softcore loadable fpga and probe points ideas, they're good things. But in general, once you exceed a certain number of presupplied closed source and relatively unauditable gates [1], you should consider yourself potentially and generally fucked... and start taking a serious defense in depth approach. [1] Let's call it the number required to perform dumb leaks or take pseudo intelligent actions against you. The current lineup from Intel/AMD certainly fall in this category. As would quite a few lesser things... ARM, phones, cards, etc... firmware things. Does it not scare you that the next PC you're about to buy for your firewall is one of these systems, potentially hiding out to honor magic packets? Look at AMD's new CPU's coming out in a few weeks... besides gate count we all know about, it has embedded ARM cores. And just who is going to bring the aforesaid open model upon this class of gear? So it's +1 for spooks.

4 3

Day of action against mass surveillance (Feb 11)
by Gregory Foster 11 Jan '14

11 Jan '14

The Day We Fight Back (Feb 11): https://thedaywefightback.org/ gf -- Gregory Foster || gfoster(a)entersection.org @gregoryfoster <> http://entersection.com/

1 0

MPAA joined W3C
by rysiek 11 Jan '14

11 Jan '14

Well, that was a long time coming... https://twitter.com/w3c/status/420548145102061568 /yes, they announced on the shitter, too! -- Pozdr rysiek

2 1

Re: Your errors about me in your book.
by Jim Bell 11 Jan '14

11 Jan '14

Dear Mr. Greenberg, Forbes Magazine You've been mighty silent, not sending me a single email since the one (November 18, 2013) which is quoted below. Apart from correcting your egregious error, claiming that I had fired "all" of my attorneys (when in fact I hadn't been successful at firing even a single one!), I also quote below my accusations against government employees in regard to phony, fake, forged 'appeal' case 99-30210, as well as my more recent allegations (albeit of a much older event) concerning the government sneakily commandeering the address 7302 Corregidor, in order to spy on me. The average 'journalist', at least ones that actually consider themselves to be real journalists, would be very interested in this kind of material. But you are not even interested enough to ask simple follow-up questions. Why is that? I think I know the answer: You consider yourself, now, aligned with precisely the people who committed these crimes against me during the period of 1995 through 2013. You yourself admitted in an article to having contacted the government: Alone that would not necessarily be a problem, but I think you realized that if you did any effort to help expose the government guys, they would be hostile to you. That's why you haven't investigated, and that's why nearly two months later you haven't even emailed to me,, despite the fact that I previously cc'd this material to you. Perhaps you are terrified that some day soon, you will yourself be the center of a scandal, "What did Andy Greenberg know, and when did he know it, and why didn't he investigate further?". Jim Bell ---- Forwarded Message ----- From: Jim Bell <jamesdbell8(a)yahoo.com> To: brian carroll <electromagnetize(a)gmail.com>; Andrew Greenberg <agreenberg(a)forbes.com>; "cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org" <cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org> Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2014 3:09 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to screw you One clue would come from my suspicion that agents of the Federal government, in March 1995, lured away the former resident of 7302 Corregidor (see http://www.redfin.com/WA/Vancouver/7302-Corregidor-Rd-98664/home/14565030 ), the house immediately to the east of mine, and bought that house. (In the picture provided, my house at 7214 Corregidor is just to the left of the house shown.) The prior resident was a local school (high school?) science teacher, and he was hired at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Richland Washington, a Federal government laboratory akin to Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, etc. http://www.pnl.gov/ The purpose of this was to be able to acquire that house, and use it as a spying location against me. (The names ostensibly buying the house were Daniel J. and Dori J. Saban, and they ran a remodeling operation named "Sundown Development Construction Corporation". http://www.sundowndevelopmentconstruction.com/ ) Note that the date the house was sold is shown as March 10, 1995. (This is odd, because school teachers' lives are oriented around the 'school year', which in most locations in America go from about September 1 to about June 1. They sign contracts with the school to work for that year, and are bound to do so. While I don't recall when the prior, lured occupant left, based on the sale date it appears that he sold that house months before the end of his school year. For a school teacher, this would have been highly unusual.) The sale price is shown as $180,000, which I think was rather high for that time. (But not unexpected if the government wanted to lure him away quickly. Presumably he got a large raise, as well.) They immediately began an extensive remodeling and enlargement operation on that house, including adding a second floor. As I recall, this remodel took nearly a year; seemingly the house was unoccupied during that time. Further, during a long period very little work was actually being done, as I recall. (This remodeling would have dramatically increased the value of that house; the sale price in 1995 of $180,000 cannot be directly compared with the current value of the much-larger and more-up-to-date house as it exists today.) While I don't remember precisely the date I published the first part of my AP essay, I believe that it was no more than a few weeks prior to March 10, 1995, on the 'Digitaliberty' discussion area. http://www.skepticfiles.org/hacker/cud6105.htm (Hence my reference to Digitaliberty in the essay; it wasn't until many weeks later that I'd heard of the 'Cypherpunks' list.) My recollection that the person who initiated 'Digitaliberty', Bill Frezza, was interested in the use of technology for the development of 'liberty', although the first part of my AP essay apparently exceeded his tolerance for radicalism. At some point somebody transported Part 1 of the AP essay to Cypherpunks, and informed me of the existence of CP; I acquired Internet access and joined the Cypherpunks list. The acquisition and operation of nearby government spy locations was/is certainly not new. Consider the case of Robert Hanssen, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen While this Wikipedia article does not mention it, I read contemporaneously various news reports (2001) that said the government set up a spy location near Hanssen's house. How far away that location was, those reports did not say. Presumably, this was a standard tactic, and non-controversial. (At least in the case of actual criminality being suspected and investigated.) The difference, in my case, was that not only did they not suspect me of any crime, they knew that I was innocent of any crime. It is obvious, therefore, that they engaged in this activity not because of any crime (which, had it existed, would have made me a 'criminal') but because of my writing and publication of Part 1 of my Assassination Politics essay. (Which made me 'an enemy', 'a dissident', an opponent of not merely the Federal government, but all governments everywhere.) In other words, the government engaged in activities more appropriate for the former Soviet Union, and seemingly not for America. One question that should be asked, is: "What what the government did, acquiring that house at surveilling me from it, legal?" They would presumably say, "yes". But why wasn't that "stalking", within the meaning of the criminal statute? After all, in November 21, 2000 I was accused of "Interstate Stalking", simply for going around, looking at various locations, not confronting (nor even seeing) anyone. I was investigating things, because I knew that something was (and had been) happening. Was I less entitled to do what I did, than what the government was to do what it did? An inmate/informant named Ryan Thomas Lund (his recent activity: http://www.localblotter.com/news/oregon/man-detained-on-multiple-counts/834… ) was instructed to attack me, which he did on November 25, 1997, because I was beginning to resist the plea agreement that I had been offered, and initially accepted. Don't think that I didn't already suspect the house at 7302 Corregidor during that time. In fact, I informed my (corrupt) attorney Peter Avenia http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/98101-wa-peter-avenia-20216.html of some of my suspicions. (But, of course, I didn't know at that time Avenia was corrupt.) Sometime about December 1, 1997, Avenia visited me at FDC Seatac jail and I told him of Lund's attack. His answer? "I don't know anything about.....that") (Avenia was also Lund's attorney.) And in about July 1998, after I was re-arrested, ostensibly for a 'supervised release violation', the prosecutor Robb London (who is currently the direction of communication at Harvard Law School http://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?orig=SEO_SN&firstName=Robb&lastName=Londo… ) claimed that I 'said that the government was spying on him' [Jim Bell]. Which, of course, was true: I DID suspect, and say, that the government was spying on me! Problem is, London was using this bare assertion to justify me being sent to the Federal Medical Center at Springfield, Missouri, for a mental evaluation (!). Another problem was, London didn't say I was _wrong_ when I said (or suspected) that. (Without at least an allegation that I was wrong, what justification is it to claim that I asserted that the government was spying on me?!? Is merely saying that I believed the government was spying on me enough to justify sending me to a mental evaluation? Would an American's "suspecting" that all his telephone metadata and email was being copied by the NSA, prior to Snowden's allegations, constitute a justification to send that 'comrade' for a mental evaluation in Siberia...er...Springfield?) And worse, I was not allowed to challenge the (implicit) allegation of falsity in my assertion that the government had been spying on me. However, I used the situation (a hearing) to extract a promise (only partly kept) from Avenia that he would investigate my allegations. Many months later, perhaps in February 1999, Avenia send investigator Sharon Callas to Vancouver. Mysteriously, Callas was said to have 'disappeared' (or perhaps 'resigned') later. I never saw the results of her investigation. Later, in about April 1999, attorney Avenia resigned, but NOT at my request. I suspected then, and still suspect today, that his resignation was triggered by something that Sharon Callas discovered during that investigation: Perhaps she confirmed enough of my allegations that Avenia knew that I was correct. http://www.shmoo.com/mail/cypherpunks/jun00/msg00154.shtml So, what had been going on? Presumably, the interest in me (including local spying) was NOT based on allegations of crime, or even suspected future crime, in March 1995. In other words, no government law enforcement agency would have been legally entitled to spy on me. Presumably, the spying that did occur was, itself, illegal: And, had it become exposed (which it should have been if I had not been assaulted by Ryan Thomas Lund on November 25, 1997), the Federal government would have suffered an enormous hit of bad publicity. This corruption must have been at an extremely high level: The forgery of fake appeal case 99-30210, initiated secretly and kept from me for 10 months, with numerous forged documents filed (at least two ostensibly being from me, but they were also forged: You can see them on PACER: www.pacer.gov 9th circuit court. One was docketed about November 10, 1999 and the other was docketed about March 4, 2000: Both dates by my recollection). That would have taken the cooperation of some very powerful people in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, possibly including a few judges. Further, every document filed in that case, from June 1999 through April 2000, was (illegally) not delivered to me when I was at FDC Seatac (until September 3, 1999) and when I was at FCI Phoenix from September 10, 1999 to my release on April 13, 2000. Indeed, there were at least two pieces of certified mail described in the docket for case 99-30210 that were mailed to my then-correct address at FCI Phoenix, which didn't get to me, presumably they were stolen by BOP staff at FCI Phoenix. (Not to mention my allegation that this entire docket was RE-forged once they learned that I had requested an appeal that I hadn't known was already in progress.) Doesn't this begin to sound like the classic "government conspiracy" that people who don't like to talk about "government conspiracies" argue don't happen. (Except rarely, say the Watergate incident in 1972). One of the reasons that I look (way) down on a few of the doofuses around here (CP list) who don't seem to 'like' me is that they apparently take that position without taking the trouble to read my 2003 lawsuit (02-1052; Portland Federal Court) and learning what I allege the government and its minions did. It will be interesting to see if any of them step up, apologize, and say, "Sorry, Mr. Bell, we didn't know..." Jim Bell ========================================================== To: Andy Greenberg, Forbes I had hoped for a quicker response to my emails to you, and by that I don't mean merely my request for you to file a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) filing with the National Archives, specifically the San Bruno facility near San Francisco. The way I see it, you used what looked (and still looks) like a false and contrived set of excuses ('Bell fired practically every court-appointed lawyer ever assigned to him', and 'Bell had filed fifty-one lawsuits against the government while in prison', and 'little wonder Bell had botched his appeals', to paraphrase your writing) in order to justify not looking into my very serious set of accusations. Well, those excuses won't wash anymore. And just a few days ago, you said that your boss wouldn't be interested in you writing a story about my numerous accusations against the Federal government and its personnel! How believable is that? You wrote and published that article about 'Sanjuro', and I suspect within just a few hours it seems like every other reporter in the world followed that story! (To exaggerate only a little.) Right now, your most recent story portrayed the Federal government as being the victims, those being offended against, the 'good guys'. But I know that's not the case. What happens when the public finds out that they: 1. Had a thug snitch, Ryan Thomas Lund, assault me on November 25, 1997, in order to extort a 'guilty' plea from me? 2. Forged a phony 'appeal', 99-30210, during the period June 1999-April 2000? 3. And, moreover, RE-forged it in May 2000? 4. Inflict a series of corrupt attorneys on me, the very same set of attorneys you falsely claimed I had 'fired'. 5. Victimized me by yet more false charges November 2000. And that's just a start. Can you say with a straight face that the public won't be interested in this pile of corruption, given the extensive and virtually instantaneous publicity already given to 'Sanjuro', and indirectly to my AP essay? (Not only by you, but practically everyone else, it seems.) Don't even try to suggest that your boss won't 'allow' it: If he's smart he will DEMAND it from you, or he will assign someone else who doesn't have a conflict of interest. Yes, I said it: A conflict of interest. You seriously mishandled your contact with me, and moreover for personal reasons: You were writing a book. Having written so misleadingly and negligently, when you learned about 'Sanjuro' no doubt you hesitated to cover the full, actual truth about what the government has done. That will only _not_ reflect badly on Forbes if you either fix your own problems promptly, or you get replaced so that an unconflicted person takes up covering the story. Since you're now well-aware that the events of my case were spectacular, and were so long before 'Sanjuro' showed up, your failure to cover the story at those points (2011, 2012; much of 2013) is incriminating. Jim Bell ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Jim Bell <jamesdbell8(a)yahoo.com> To: Andrew Greenberg <agreenberg(a)forbes.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:52 PM Subject: Fw: Your errors about me in your book. I want to add a comment about what you could, and SHOULD, do now. I have explained that there was a massive forgery in appeal case 99-30210. I have said that I believe that occurred in early May 2000. While I do not know any details about the computer that was (or is, today) used for the docketing system for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, we can presume that this computer was backed-up regularly, probably daily, and occasionally those backups were sent to a safe location. I think that safe location was the "Federal Records Center at San Bruno California". (This is a location of the "National Archives".) http://www.archives.gov/frc/san-francisco/ I think you ought display your extreme apology by you and your lawyer writing a 'freedom of information act' request (FOIA) to such an organization, and demand that they obtain and provide to you (and copy to me) copies of the backups for the docketing computer, including case 99-30210, done at approximately the following dates: March 1, 2000, April 1, 2000, May 1, 2000, June 1, 2000. As I am sure you will be able to imagine, these sequential backups will show the existence of that case, and its status, at various times. If, at any point, they 'faked' the appeal, manipulating the record, any backups made subsequent to that manipulation will reflect those changes, while the backups made prior to that manipulation will reflect the earlier status of the appeal. Please note that the pre-forgery status of appeal 99-30210 WAS NOT 'correct': In fact, it itself was a forged 'appeal', but it was whatever these government crooks wanted to fake up until their RE-forgery of appeal 99-30210. They had to RE-forge it because, after my inquiry demanding an appeal (which I didn't know they were already purporting to give me) they felt it necessary to further manipulate the record, and they proceeded to do so. You can do this FOIA request in much less than a day, and file it by email to avoid further unnecessary delay. Your attorney (for Forbes) should know how to do so. Please note that the Feds will try to make phony arguments to dissuade you: One of them will probably be that they 'don't know how' to find the records in question in a 'box' of records provided to them by the Ninth Circuit Court. That excuse will be a dishonest deflection from the truth, however: The truth is that the possessor of the records (in this case, the National Archives) has an OBLIGATION to do whatever it takes to find and identify the requested information in the material given to them by the generator of the records, the Ninth Circuit Court. http://search.archives.gov/query.html?qt=computer+backups&submit=GO&col=1ar… http://www.archives.gov/oig/pdf/2010/management-letter-oi-10-03.pdf http://www.archives.gov/oig/pdf/2010/semiannual-congress-10-2010.pdf I also anticipate that they will claim that 'court records' need not be provided pursuant to a FOIA request. Such a statement will also be false: The truth is that FOIA is addressed to any record in the possession of the Administrative branch of the Federal government. The "National Archives" is part of the Administrative branch, NOT the judicial branch. Since these records are possessed by the Administrative branch, the facility (the National Archives) is obliged to do anything necessary to find and to disclose these records. http://search.archives.gov/query.html?qt=foia&col=1arch&rq=0&qs=&qc=1arch&q… Please respond to me on this matter within a day. Please file the FOIA request, by email, by the end of the business day this Friday, November 22. 2013. Jim Bell ________________________________ From: "Greenberg, Andrew" <AGreenberg(a)forbes.com> To: Jim Bell <jamesdbell8(a)yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 9:53 PM Subject: Re: Your errors about me in your book. Jim, I appreciate all the evidence you’ve presented that those two sentences of my book were in error. I think it's an exaggeration to say that I "misrepresented virtually every fact, implication, and nuance" related to you when in fact the vast majority of what I wrote about you in my book had nothing to do with your legal case and instead focused on your Assassination Politics essay. It does seem, however, that I have made mistakes based on my reading of your legal docket with Forbes’ lawyer, describing some of your legal actions as lawsuits and confusing the resignation of a number of your lawyers or your attempts to fire them with your actually firing them. The suggestion that you had “botched” the appeal was a subjective statement that described Forbes’ lawyer’s assessment of your records and explaining her reluctance to assist you. But for the other errors, I sincerely apologize, and I’ll talk to my publisher to see about having these details corrected in future editions, as I've said earlier. I’m afraid I can’t promise to write anything about your case for Forbes, as you request, as it doesn’t fall into my beat as a journalist (privacy/security/cryptography) and almost certainly wouldn’t be a story my editors would greenlight. I’m not sure what else I can offer, but I wish you all the best in pursuing your legal investigation. Andy On Nov 18, 2013, at 5:56 PM, Jim Bell wrote: To: Andy Greenberg of Forbes Magazine, author of "This Machine Kills Secrets". Keep in mind that most of what I describe here will be in my 2003 lawsuit, 02-1052. <http:///> cryptome.org/jdb-v-usa-106.htm<http://cryptome.org/jdb-v-usa-106.htm> <http:///> I should point out that you don't seem to be commenting about my now-numerous emails to you about these attorneys. What's the problem? Are you AFRAID to comment? I think it's unfair for you to wait until I have disclosed all this material, before you comment. I really think I have a right to learn WHY you claimed that I had tried to fire 'every' attorney I'd had. Where did you hear this? You certainly never tried to verify this claim with me! I would have told you the truth; I would have directed you to lawsuit 02-1052, which already contained the truth. Robert Leen: (You might initially be pleased to hear that Leen was the first attorney I'd actually TRIED to 'fire'. But don't get your hopes up! I was entirely unsuccessful at that attempt.!) My next attorney was assigned about November 21, 2000. I knew 'the fix was in' because I had done NOTHING illegal. I didn't know about the forged, fake, fraudulent appeal case (99-30210), at least the portion of which was prior to May 2000 But I had very publicly announced that I had major, major suspicions about government government corruption, especially Ryan Thomas Lund's November 25, 1997 assault on me (ordered by government employees). And, I knew that the government had placed a tracking device on my parents' car (probably both of them) in April-June 1998. Also, I knew that the Feds had illegally searched my house on my arrest in June 1998. (I had been removed from my house; the house was empty of 'cops'. They had no authority to continue to search that house, yet they did so. Robert Leen refused to try to obtain any 'discovery' shortly after my arrest about November 20, 2000. Recognizing that Leen was trying to sabotage my legal case, I wrote a letter to the Judge (Tanner) in about December 8, 2000, complaining that Leen was trying to sabotage my case. I was astonished (at least in part) that the Judge refused to have Leen fired. I kept asking for Leen to be fired throughout January, February, March, and beyond in 2001. No (good) answer by the Judge. I began learning the law in mid-December 2000. Starting about late February 2001, I began to write various legal motions, in order to document my complete unwillingness to accept Leen's 'representation'. (If you just look at the docket entries for case 00-5731, you may not be able to easily identify which motions were written by me, and which w To show your lawyer how corrupt the Judge (Tanner) and Leen, and the prosecutor (Robb London) were (case 00-5731), during the last week of March 2001, I filed a 'notice of interlocutory appeal'. Your lawyer presumably understands that if a 'notice of appeal' arrives at court, of an appealable issue, that divests the jurisdiction of that court to proceed with any trial. Wanna know what happened? The judge PROCEEDED with a 'trial' as if nothing had happened. I filed a SECOND notice of interlocutory appeal a few weeks before the 'sentencing', and again that filing was completely ignored. Robert Leen was NEVER 'fired'. In fact, in May 2010 (after being arrested for an ostensible probation violation.) Leen actually continued to (pretend to) 'represent me'. Even until today, I presume, he is ostensibly still 'representing' me. At least, on the paperwork he will be listed as 'representing' me. I should point out, also, that it was about this time (early in Leen's malicious 'representation' of me) that I first heard the wacky comment (by the prosecutor Robb London) of his resistance to having Leen replaced. London said something LIKE "Bell fires all his attorneys". By now, Mr. Greenberg, you are well aware that this isn't true. You really need to find Robb London, and ask him if he ever said something like "Bell fires all his attorneys". Perhaps London would defend himself by claiming that he looked into the court record, noticed that at various times the name of my lawyer had changed, and he decided this 'must have' meant that I succeeded (and, therefore, certainly tried) in replacing these attorneys. Annemarie Levins I guess I'm getting tired of re-hashing what you could, and SHOULD, have read in my lawsuit, 02-1052, filed July 14, 2003. Levins was assigned shortly after my ostensible 'conviction' in September 2001. (The reason, as I vaguely recall, was that Robert Leen had stated, "I don't do appeals". I responded by saying to Leen, in what was only about 25% intended as a joke, "You don't do appeals. You merely make them necessary.") Over the next 4-5 months I wrote Levins numerous letters, containing easily 100 pages of single-spaced text, listing HUNDREDS of very arguable appeal issues. Levins, to my recollection, NEVER responded to even a single one of my letters! An increasing sense of dread resulted. I felt it was quite obvious that Levins was planning to further victimize me, in precisely the same way Avenia, Mandel, and Leen had done. (Remember, I did not then yet know how Solovy had victimized me, by concealing the pre-May-2000 existence of appeal 99-30210.) As I vaguely recall (not referring to any record) my appeal had to be filed on a Monday, perhaps it was in January or February 2002. At virtually the last minute, perhaps on a Thursday before, I finally received a copy of "the appeal". By that time, I had learned plenty of federal criminal and appeal law. I saw the appeal that Levins had written, the one that she had CONCEALED from me for 4 months, and it was obvious that it was intended to sabotage my case. Which, in fact, it did. There were at least 100 incredibly valid appeal issues which, if they had been argued properly, would have easily freed me, but Levins argued NONE of them. Perhaps the day later, maybe it was Friday, the weekday before the appeal had to be filed, I obtained a telephone call to Levins. In that call, I accused Levins of deliberately sabotaging my case, saying that her failure to even respond to my 100+ pages of letters proved that she was a crook. She didn't deny it! When it was clear that Levins wasn't going to apologize, I ORDERED her to NOT file that appeal. I told her, "You're fired! You must not file that appeal! And if you're already filed it, I order you to withdraw it!!!". Strong words, but quite appropriate under the circumstances. The result? She DIDN'T resign. She filed the appeal. She DIDN'T have it withdrawn. The appeal lost, as I knew it would. --- Mr. Greenberg, you should be utterly and completely ashamed for what you have done. You have thoroughly and completely misrepresented virtually every fact, implication, and nuance relating to me and my legal cases, and virtually everything I said/wrote to you. You LIED by claiming of your lawyer, "She read Bell's letter, then checked his legal file, which showed that he had fired practically every court-appointed lawyer ever assigned to him---little wonder that he had botched his appeals. It also showed he had filed fifty-one lawsuits against the government while in prison---nearly all dismissed immediately. She wanted nothing to do with it." Mr. Greenberg, your lawyer is totally incompetent to have said ANY of these things. I have made perfectly clear in my recent set of emails to you: 1. You never verified any of these supposed 'facts', when in fact you had access to my 02-1052 lawsuit which would have told you the truth. 2. I never was SUCCESSFUL at firing ANY attorney assigned to my case. 3. I never ATTEMPTED to fire Avenia, Mandel, Floit, Bukey, and Solovy. 4. When, finally, I did begin to ATTEMPT to fire an attorney, Leen, I was entirely unsuccessful, indeed for a period of 9 years. 5. When I did ATTEMPT to fire Annemarie Levins, and ordered her to NOT file that appeal, I was completely unsuccessful in that attempt. 6. I did not file "Fifty-one lawsuits against the government". As I have already explained to you, I DID file well over 100 "habeas corpus" actions, which your lawyer was apparently unable to distinguish from 'lawsuits'. But since your lawyer probably didn't even bother to do anymore than read the dockets for some of these cases, it is perfectly obvious that she had no genuine idea why these habeas corpus actions were "dismissed immediately". In other words, she (presumably) didn't know whether those dismissals were 'genuine', or whether the dismissals were entirely frivolous. I can assure you that these dismissals were entirely frivolous. But, you didn't check my side of the story, because YOU DIDN'T ASK ME! That's called "bias". 7. _I_ never "botched any appeals". The appeals, to the extent they were 'botched', were 'botched' by the attorneys who were assigned to me, and (I claim) were actually assigned for the PURPOSE of 'botching' those appeals. Mr. Greenberg, at this point you have an obligation, not merely to APOLOGIZE, but in fact to set the record straight. And I mean, not only in future editions of your book, but also to investigate the reality of the facts of the case. After all of the victimization I faced at the hands of the government and its thugs, you come along and make the situation worse! You try to make me look like a nut, when the reality is precisely as I have long claimed: I am the victim of the Federal government and its employees and agents. At no time did I lie or misrepresent the truth. At EVERY time the Federal government and its agents misrepresent the truth. Mr. Greenberg, I have decided to publish the contents of this email in the Cypherpunks mailing list, to show that I have put you on notice as to your complicity in this matter. You can fix part of the problem by changing your book, and by writing a long article for Forbes telling (at least) how you claim to have been hoodwinked by the Federal Government. Morally, that will help a bit, but it won't change the fact that you were utterly unwilling to pursue the truth when it mattered most. Jim Bell ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Jim Bell <jamesdbell8(a)yahoo.com<mailto:jamesdbell8@yahoo.com>> To: Andrew Greenberg <agreenberg(a)forbes.com<mailto:agreenberg@forbes.com>> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 1:26 PM Subject: Fw: Your errors about me in your book. Mr Greenberg, I will continue about the history of 'my' attorneys, who were 'my' attorneys in name only: They were actually the attorneys of "The United States of America", and of their colluding employees. While I would like to say that my 'next' attorney was Jonathan Solovy, given the paperwork I should first deal with a couple of 'asterisks', named Catherine Floit and David Bukey. At some point after I wrote that letter to the Ninth Circuit Court, I received a letter (about June 2000?) from an attorney named Catherine Floit. I called her by telephone, and I explained a bit about the history of prior attorneys Peter Avenia and Judith Mandel. I further explained that I had very, very serious suspicions about government corruption by these attorneys, and the government in general. I said that I would be suing those attorneys, and any other people who assisted the government corruption I then suspected. (Note: Remember, at that point, I did not know about the pre-April existence of phony, forged Ninth Circuit Court appeal 99-30210.) I was surprised when that phone call to Catherine Floit didn't last very long after that! (A minute?) 'What happened?', I thought! It turns out that Floit later contacted the people who had appointed her (the Public Defenders' Office in Seattle Washington, I think.) and asked to be de-assigned to my case. I later heard that she CLAIMED (quite falsely) that I had 'threatened' her! But I hadn't threatened her at all! I had no reason to do so, particularly at that early stage in her representation. But at this point I knew very little about the law. Eventually (a few years later, after I first saw the docket for the forged appeal case 99-30210, in late June 2003; see Jonathan Solovy's 'representation', which I will shortly write about) I realized that Floit must have been informed about the fact that the case she had been assigned to handle, 99-30210, was ALREADY a fraud, and in my phone call with her she learned that I was rather well-informed about the corruption of those two prior attorneys, Avenia and Mandel, AND that I intended to sue them, etc. In other words, she understood that if she took that case, and if she did what the government wanted her to do, she herself was almost certainly going to get sued, and for exactly the kinds of things that Avenia and Mandel were already 'in the crosshairs' for having done in the past. When an attorney is ASSIGNED a case (by a judge or a court) it's fairly hard to 'get out of it'. Such an attorney has to have a rather 'good' (but not necessarily, 'valid') reason to be relieved of that responsibility. Floit (I realized, years later) could not have simply said, "Jim Bell is on to them/us!!! He's going to sue us!". Floit could not have said, "The government is engaging in corruption against Bell, and I don't want to be part of it!". So, what was she going to do? It turns out that the easiest way for her to get out of the assignment was to (falsely) claim, "Jim Bell threatened me!!!". Which she, apparently, did. But I DIDN'T threaten her. But that didn't matter: Floit's mere allegation amounted to a "Get out of representation free" card, analogous to Monopoly's "Get out of jail free" card. She was not obligated to actually prove I'd done anything: No proof was required, or even requested. The allegation itself was quite enough. As she, no doubt, knew quite well. A few weeks later, another attorney (David Bukey) was assigned, but I didn't hear of that. I was not given any notification that Bukey had been assigned: Apparently Bukey heard of his assignment, refused it, and he never contacted me. Nor did anyone else contact me, either, on any subject, including that of Bukey or his (brief) assignment to my case. During this time, I wrote yet another letter to the Ninth Circuit Court basically asking, "Where's my representation?". Notice, now, that the count is up to FOUR: Avenia, Mandel, Floit, and Bukey: None of these attorneys did I ever attempt to 'fire'. (And I didn't even learn that Bukey was supposed to be representing me, until after he had been relieved of that.) The closest to even 'attempting to fire' I had done was when I tried to prevent Avenia from being relieved, because I didn't want his successor (who turned out to be Mandel: I didn't want anybody assigned, because I had already gotten promises from Avenia to do investigation, which eventually he never effectively did) to be assigned. But at that, I was unsuccessful at both, of course. Jonathan Solovy: Eventually, Solovy was assigned to case 99-30210, as I vaguely recall in about August 2000. Keep in mind that I STILL didn't know about the pre-May-2000 existence of case 99-30210 as of then: I would only learn of that pre-May-2000 existence when I wrote for, and received, the docket for 99-30210 in late June 2003. Solovy didn't do anything OBVIOUSLY wrong. At least, I didn't recognize that in 2000. He wrote the appeal, 99-30210, filed it, and it lost. I think he may also have written a Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court, which also obviously failed. (I don't recall what they contained; I didn't learn the law until beginning December 2000). But I can say this much: At no time during Solovy's representation did he EVER say to me anything that would have alerted me to the pre-May-2000 existence of case 99-30210. I may not have known much (or even 'anything') about Federal law in September, 2000, but if he had said something like "Jim, I see you've been assigned pro-se to this appeal since July 1999: What are your theories as to appealing this case?" I would have been alerted, with a distinct start, and I would have instantly asked him, "What do you mean? I thought I began this case in April 2000, when I wrote a letter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? What's this about July 1999?!?". By the time I first saw a copy of the docket for case 99-30210, on about June 20, 2003, I knew FAR more Federal law. I'd spent since about December 2000 in a jail/prison law library. In fact, two of the REASONS I wrote to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in early June 2003, asking for the docket for 99-30210, were: 1. Clearing up loose ends for my Portland Federal Court lawsuit, 02-1052, I remembered that I had (thought!) initiated that appeal (99-30210) by means of mailing a letter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, asking for an appeal. (In case 97-5270, as I recall). As of June 2003, I understood that the rules required that to appeal, somebody needs to file a 'Notice of Appeal' within about two weeks of the date of the order-entry. My letter of April 2000 was, I then realized, nearly ten (10) months too late to initiate an appeal in that case. "So why," I thought, "wasn't that letter immediately rejected?!?" and "Why did they give me that appeal?" 2. At some point, I recognized that the case-number of that appeal (99-30210) started with the number, "99", which stands for "1999", the date that appeal was initiated. In other words, I eventually realized (June 2003) that that appeal had been begun in 1999, NOT in 2000. Evidently, my letter of April 2000 DIDN'T 'start the ball rolling' on that appeal. Therefore, and being quite suspicious, I wrote a bland, routine note in early June 2003 to the Ninth Circuit, asking for the copy of the docket for case 99-30210, which I had never seen before. I received an envelope about June 20, 2003, containing a copy of that docket. The most obvious thing that struck me about that docket was that case 99-30210 DIDN'T start in April 2000, as I had previously assumed. It was quite clear, instead that it had begun in July 1999. (Although, the 'Notice of Appeal' had actually been filed about June 20, 1999). Something VERY VERY suspicious had been going on! Secondly, I looked through the various docket entries, and I could see that this case had appeared to have been active: Ostensibly, I had actually been 'pro se' (representing myself) which I knew that I hadn't been doing! (because, of course, I hadn't even known about the existence of that case, prior to May 2000, thinking I initiated it with a letter to the Ninth Circuit in late April 2000). In fact, I could see that there were two filings, about November 10, 1999, and March 2, 2000, which purported to have been filed by me! (And, obviously, I knew that I hadn't filed them!) Most importantly, I realized that I had not received ANY of these many mailings while I was at Seatac FDC (until Sept 3, 1999) nor any while I was at Phoenix FCI (From Sept 10, 1999 though April 13, 2000, when I was released; I was at the Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center for a week from Sept 3 to Sept 10, 1999.) Note: I received NONE of the mailings from the Ninth Circuit Court during July 1999 through April 2000, because the Bureau of Prisons staff at both those locations hid them from me. (Did not deliver them to me). If I had received EVEN ONE of those mailings, I would have been alerted that an appeal existed. I didn't receive even a single one. Of course, I wasn't EXPECTING a single one, either, because I was not then aware that appeal 99-30210 existed. But there was more. I looked at the docket item numbers at the middle of the docket pages (between the dates on the left, and the descriptions of the entries on the right) and I noticed that they were not all there. Some were out of order (I later understood that merely being out of order is not abnormal) but 29 of the first 79 docket entry numbers simply were not present! Since I already knew there had to be a dramatic amount of corruption associated with this case, I considered that a very significant clue. Later, weeks and months later, I showed this docket to numerous 'jailhouse lawyers', and to a person, they said they had never seen even a single 'missing' docket entry number on any dockets they had ever seen. Over the subsequent years, I also looked at any docket I could get my hands on, and never once was I able to identify even a single 'missing' docket entry number on any docket. An explanation is in order. I believe that in about May 2000, some of the staff of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals engaged in a 'forgery party' of the docket for case 99-30210. I think that they realized that they could not deny me an appeal in that probation-revocation case, BECAUSE THEY HAD ALREADY GIVEN ME THAT APPEAL! But, they also realized that they couldn't simply continue on with that forgery, because they knew that I DIDN'T KNOW of the existence of appeal 99-30210 during the time of June 1999 through April 2000. They knew that they couldn't simply initiate a new appeal, because a record of appeal 99-30210 already existed. They also knew that they couldn't allow me to see a copy of the docket for 99-30210, because that would have alerted me (just as it eventually alerted me in June 2003) that the appeal had existed, yet had been concealed from me during the period June 1999 through April 2000. What they had to do, I think, was to RE-forge that docket, which they did in May 2000, and then assign a colluding attorney (First Floit, then Bukey, then Solovy) who would help conceal the history of this case from me, and then write a serviceable 'appeal', so that it could lose: Their hope, apparently, was that I would be satisfied with that. And until June 2003, I was indeed 'satisfied'. Perhaps a couple months after I first saw that copy of the docket for case 99-30210, I wrote a letter to Jonathan Solovy. (He had never been 'de-assigned' to my case). I don't recall, precisely, what I said (It's been 10 years!), but I asked him to look into into the problem. His response? Well, suddenly he had developed 'carpal tunnel syndrome' (I was well aware of that condition) and he couldn't handle my case anymore! I insisted; He wrote to the judge, asking that he be allowed to withdraw. Actually, I think he wrote to the WRONG judge! I think he wrote to Judge Burgess, of the District Court case, 97-5270, NOT the Ninth Circuit appeals court (99-30210). But it didn't matter: he was allowed to withdraw. Please note: Jonathan Solovy was my FIFTH attorney, if you are counting Avenia, Mandel, Floit, and Bukey before him. And note that I didn't try to get Solovy, either, 'fired'. Indeed, yet again I wanted to see Solovy to continue to handle that case (99-30210) in large part BECAUSE I knew that he had committed fraud against me and, kinda-sorta, against the court as well. But, Solovy's fraud was in league with the U.S. Attorneys (Seattle), the Federal Bureau of Prisons staff at FDC Seatac, and at FCI Phoenix, and the staff of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and possibly others. So, where did you come up with that claim that I fired "all" of my attorneys, HMMMMMMMM????????? Sorry if I display a little schadenfreude, but I think I've earned the right to complain. And I still haven't yet mentioned attorney Robert Leen, and Annemarie Levins, either!!! I'll talk about them next. Jim Bell ----- Forwarded Message ----- On 11/14/13 7:15 PM, "Jim Bell" <jamesdbell8(a)yahoo.com<mailto:jamesdbell8@yahoo.com>> wrote: Mr. Greenberg, This is further commentary about your claim that I fired 'every' attorney I was assigned. That, as I previously stated, was and is laughably incorrect. Please see Claims 130 through 145, in my July 2003 Lawsuit, "James Dalton Bell et al v. District Courts of Tacoma and Seattle, et al", case number 02-1052, as amended on about July 14, 2003, for what I mentioned in my previous message, copied below. It's available on the Web, at: <http:///> cryptome.org/jdb-v-usa-106.htm<http://cryptome.org/jdb-v-usa-106.htm> <http:///> See, further, Claims 146-161, describing how attorney Judith Mandel was forced onto me. Strictly speaking, I didn't try to 'fire' Mandel: More accurately, I tried to prevent Mandel from being inflicted onto me, although I was unsuccessful. Mandel actually REQUESTED to withdraw, on about June 2, 1999 (See my Claim 158 in Lawsuit 02-1052). You will notice very few references to forged, fraudulent 9th Circuit Court of Appeal case 99-30210 in my lawsuit. The reason is that I was having another person edit this lawsuit, in the Portland Oregon area, and I only discovered the pre-April-2000 existence of case 99-30210 in about June 20, 2003. That lawsuit had been originally filed in about July 2002, and there was a 1-year limitation period on my amending that lawsuit, in order to obtain the benefit of the earlier (2002) filing date. Thus, I had very little time in which to do those edits: I had to write a very few such edits, mail them to the person doing the edits in the Portland area, where he made those edits, and then have copies of the amendment printed up and filed at Portland Oregon Federal Court. It was, I believe, Judith Mandel who filed the one-page "Notice of Appeal" (About June 20, 1999) for my probation-revocation case in Tacoma Federal Court. (And she resigned about June 21, 1999). But she never sent me a copy of that notice. Of course, I didn't know that at the time. (And she never mailed to me a copy of her file on my case, which she should have done if she had been going to 'allow' me to defend myself in any subsequent appeal.) Even that wouldn't have been a problem, EXCEPT that all of the mailings subsequently done by the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals (or should have been done?) were never delivered to me: First, at my address at Seatac Federal Detention Center (FDC), until about Sept 3, 1999, and subsequently (beginning about Sept 10, 1999) at Phoenix FCI. The only plausible explanation for this combination is that there was careful collusion between Mandel, the Tacoma Federal Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the staff of Seatac FDC and (later) Phoexnix FCI. If even ONE of the mailings that I should have gotten from the Ninth Circuit Court had actually arrived and had been delivered to me, I would have been aware of the existence of that appeal, case 99-30210. My recollection is that in April 2000, I wrote a letter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, still unaware of the existence of case 99-30210. I demanded an appeal on my probation-revocation case. (I had been told, by a jailhouse-lawyer, in early 2000 that I had a right to an appeal.) What I didn't know (because I didn't know the law at that point) that in order to obtain an appeal, I would have had to have filed a "Notice of Appeal" within two weeks after the entry of the order: About June 1999. So, if I had know the rules, I would not have written that letter, because I would have realized that I was about 10 months too late. But, the reality is that the appeal ALREADY EXISTED, though I didn't know that at the time. In fact, I only learned in June 2003 that case 99-30210 had existed as early as July 1999. So, you can see that I DIDN'T even attempt to fire attorney Judith Mandel. So, why did you say I fired her? Why did you say I fired her predecessor, Peter Avenia? I think by now you're getting a sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach, but it's going to get worse, much worse! I will continue to show that I did not SUCCEED in firing ANY attorney, and that in all cases those attorneys continued to victimize me until the damage they could do was done. Then, on their own initiative (and with the approval of a colluding judge), they left. Jim Bell ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Jim Bell <jamesdbell8(a)yahoo.com<mailto:jamesdbell8@yahoo.com>> To: Andrew Greenberg <agreenberg(a)forbes.com<mailto:agreenberg@forbes.com>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:21 AM Subject: Your errors about me in your book. From Page 132 of "This Machine Kills Secrets". You commented about my "truly phenomenal discovery". I have sent you a copy of the as-published PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty), for my isotopically-modified optical fiber invention. Corning says that 300 billion meters of optical fiber are made each year; If I get 10% market penetration, that's 30 billion meters. At $0.25 per meter of fiber royalty, that's $7.5 billion per year, or $150 billion over the patent's 20-year lifetime. However, this is only one of a few dozen inventions I have thought of involving isotopically-modified materials, although it is the most readily doable and is like the most profitable. In principle, however, my fiber optic inventions number far more than this: The main problem is that isotope separation is rather expensive, and any such invention isn't worth doing unless the benefit from the material or device exceeds the cost of that separation. The main reason my optical fiber is practical is that the isotopically-modified core of the 125-micron fiber is only about 30 microns in diameter, so that it uses very little isotopically-modified material. My estimate of 5000 patents is still reasonable, based on what I know now, but it will require the development of ever-cheaper ways of separating isotopes. Next: The article says (page 133) that "he had fired practically every court-appointed lawyer ever assigned to him". Actually, that is absolutely NOT true, although the truth requires some explanation that you didn't bother to ask me. I could say, accurately, that I "Never" fired ANY attorney, but again that requires some explanation. (More precisely, I never SUCCEEDED in firing ANY lawyer: In every circumstance where I tried to fire an attorney, that attorney was continued to be forced upon me, for weeks, months, or in one case years, and if and when that attorney finally withdrew, it wasn't because _I_ wanted him to leave, it was because he (or she) had finally achieved the damage to me that he (or she) was trying to do, and he (or she) obtained the permission of the judge to withdraw. You have a major responsibility here! To my recollection, you NEVER asked me about me 'firing' any attorney, yet you put this material in your book as if it were true. You have based your commentary on these false 'facts', and you didn't check with me to see if I had a correction or other explanation. Peter Avenia was my first attorney (1997-1999). I never even tried to fire him. And, in fact, I tried to get the judge (Burgess) in about April 1999 to REFUSE Avenia's request to withdraw. Why? In 1998, I consented to an unnecessary 'mental evaluation' (in Springfield Missouri) based on Avenia's promise that he would investigate my allegations that the government had been spying on me. In fact, the only basis for the government's request for a 'mental evaluation' was my claim that the government was spying on me! Please note that the government didn't deny that it had been spying; the prosecutor didn't comment on that. Can you see why this is a problem? It turns out that the government was, indeed, spying on me, including during the period of April 1998 and June 1998, after which they arrested me for a 'supervised violation'. In fact, they had placed a tracking device in at least one of my parents' cars (A Lincoln). "What's wrong with that", you might ask? Well, in 2012 the US Supreme Court ruled (U.S. v. Jones) that such a placement was a "search" under the 4th Amendment. Indeed, in a 1999 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case (U.S. v. McIver) , that court ruled that it was legal (under certain circumstances inapplicable to me) for 'cops' (term used generically) to place a tracking device on a subject's car. Problem was, in the McIver there was actually a CRIME being investigated (Marijuana growing) and the subject was directly linked to that crime. In stark contrast, I was neither suspected or known to have been involved in any crime, then-past, then-present, or then-future. In other words, these Feds actually just placed the tracking on the car without any legitimate law-enforcement reason. They did not want, however, to have the fact of their arguably-illegal placement of the tracking devices(s) openly mentioned in any court hearing. I, quite the opposite, DEMANDED to my attorney, Avenia, that he verify the tracking device(s) placement, and argue the matter in court. He promised to do that, in mid 1998, but he later (April 1999) broke his promise by resigning, and his replacement also refused. In other words, I was denied an actual defense due to the collusion of two of 'my' attorneys as well as the government. One of the major things I wanted to do was to prove that the Feds were employing what should be illegal tactics (such as the GPS tracking device) not for any legitimate reason, but simply because they considered me to be their 'enemy', not because they thought I was going to commit any crime. I wanted to be able to show that they were "offending" against me, because of (among other things) my allegation that they had employed a jailhouse snitch ("Ryan Thomas Lund") to attack me, which he did on November 25, 1997. (See version 1.06 of my Portland Oregon Federal Court lawsuit, 02-1052, version filed in July of 2003. Avenia agreed to have an investigator do that. I went to that (useless) evaluation, but when I returned I continued to insist on the investigation that Avenia had promised. Indeed, he eventually did send an investigator ("Sharon Callas") to do an investigation, in Vancouver Washington. Mysteriously, she resigned very shortly after doing that investigation, and I was never given the results. Avenia was allowed (by the Judge, Burgess, now dead) to resign in about April 1999. I objected at a court hearing, because I had gotten Avenia to PROMISE to do an investigation, and I was afraid (correctly, as it turns out) that any replacement of him would fail or refuse to bring out the issues concerning the government's crimes and misdeeds against me. More tomorrow. Jim Bell

1 0