Jim Bell



>
> ============================How to accomplish the below
> project: INFORMATIONAL REQUIREMENT: There is an online system called
> "PACER.GOV", which provides information on Federal Court records,
> both civil and criminal.  This system can be searched to identify new
> Federal Criminal defendants, and likely their current addresses.  (in
> jail, perhaps?)  These records show full names, possibly addresses
> (home) as well, and the specific court in which the defendant was
> indicted.  While I don't yet know this information, a given defendant
> for a given court is probably: 1.  In unusual cases, is "bailed out",
> and allowed to live at home.  His prior address will probably be
> valid.2.  In the usual cases, he is arrested, and held in some sort
> of jail.2a.  This might be some sort of Federal criminal jail, such
> as Seatac FDC in Seatac, Washington state.  2b.  Or, it might be in
> some sort of county or city jail. What is needed is to identify his
> full name and current physical address, and possibly the name and
> address of his attorney.  In 2016, there were about 77,000 new
> defendants, which amounts to 210 new defendants per calendar day.
>  That attorney MIGHT be cooperative, and forward a letter to his
> client.  At that point, all such newly-identified Federal criminal
> defendants should be mailed a letter, making the following offer:
> (announcement?) Dear Sir:    Our records indicate that you are a
> newly-charged Federal Criminal defendant.  We have what we hope will
> be some good news, a change from the bad news you have gotten.  We
> have a project ongoing to encourage the use of the Jury Trial system
> in the Federal Criminal Court system.  In 2016, of about 77,000 new
> defendants, 97.3% of those pleaded guilty.  We think that's wrong.
> The large majority of those people were effectively extorted to plead
> guilty by threat of an increased sentence.   We believe that the only
> people the Federal Criminal system should be able to convict and
> sentence are those who went through a jury trial.    If that were to
> happen, the total number of people sentenced might drop by a factor
> of 20x.   Most people in your position would have to be released
> without further charge.      Therefore, we are telling you, and every
> other Federal Criminal defendant that we can find,  that IF you plead
> not-guilty, and IF you demand a jury trial, and IF you receive that
> jury trial, we will be paying you $3,000 (three thousand dollars).
> This happens, regardless of whether you are found guilty or
> not-guilty.  We encourage you to spread this message to any other
> Federal criminal defendant you may happen to meet.  We have included
> extra copies of this letter for you to give to them.   Further,
> please have your friends and family check out our website at:
>  www.//liber....project.org.     We believe that the Federal Court
> system can probably only put on 3,000 criminal trials per year.  If
> "everyone" who is charged pleads not-guilty, and then insists on a
> jury trial, then the vast majority of those defendants will have to
> have their charges dropped.  That's our intention.  If you plead not
> guilty and insist on a jury trial, and receive it, you will get the
> $3,000.   Our intention is that the vast majority of defendants will
> have their charges dropped and they will have to be released.  If
> your charges are dropped, or reduced below the point that you can
> demand a jury trial, or you plead guilty, then you will not receive
> any money from us.   But, hopefully you will get released, which is
> the goal. You do not need to do anything to "accept" this
> arrangement,  But, we encourage you to respond to us by filling out
> the form, included, and returning it to us.  It will speed the
> process.           Sincerely,--------------------- Of course, there
> are 'mailing list' companies that make it a business to collect
> information and sell it.  But this is a very odd and selective list.
> It is not "commercial":  Ordinarily, it may not be possible to make
> money on such a list.  Nevertheless, it may be possible to obtain
> this information (names and addresses of new Federal criminal
> defendants) via some existing source.  FUNDING: The amount of money
> required for this project is: 1.   Administration.  Perhaps 10 people
> full time, paid with expenses perhaps $100,000 each.  Or, perhaps $1
> million per year.     Each person can work from home.  No central
> office should be needed.   Mailing might be done automatically, using
> some automated commercial service, or perhaps manually.   2.  Actual
> reward money:  This will be limited by the product of the number of
> Federal Criminal trials that the Feds can put on yearly.  Maybe that
> is 3,000, but shouldn't be much more.  Multiplied by the amount of
> money that would be necessary to offer to each defendant,  to get a
> large fraction of the Federal Criminal Defendants to plead
> not-guilty, and demand a jury trial.    Currently I estimate that to
> be $3,000.  It might be lower or higher, of course.  While certainly
> there are defendants for whom a reward of $3,000 won't be significant
> or relevant, I believe that the large majority of them will be swayed
> by such an offer.  And it is important that these people learn and
> know that EVERY new Federal Criminal defendant is being given the
> same offer.  This will encourage them to act, as if they are in a
> group, and all will demand jury trials.   Of course, it is my
> intention to virtually shut down the Federal Criminal "Justice"
> system, or at least drop its capacity for convicting people by a
> factor of about 20x.  Who should be willing to give? It is not my
> intention that the burden of this project should be shouldered on
> libertarians, alone.  Fortunately, I think there are many potential
> sources of funding, each with their own peculiar motivation: A:
> "Liberals", and especially "Hollywood Liberals".  Newly rather beaten
> up by the Harvey Weinstein fiasco, liberals are famously in favor of
> illegal aliens (err...undocumented immigrants).  While there are
> other ways to simply eject such people, one way requires a criminal
> trial:  "Illegal re-entry", which is a felony, and conviction of that
> offense requires a trial, and they could insist on a jury trial.
>  Liberals also should generally be against laws against
> currently-illegal drugs.   B:    "Conservatives", including
> "Libertarians", may actually believe in the 2nd Amendment, and
> believe that there should not be "gun offenses" except for people who
> actively employ a gun in the commission of a crime.    ("Felons" were
> not prohibited from owning guns until the early 1930's, and even then
> the prohibition was against "violent felons".  It was not until 1968
> that "felons", in general, were prohibited from owning guns.)  C:
>  "Libertarians" will be against laws prohibiting victimless crimes,
> such as drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc.  The figure of $10
> million per year can either be seen as "very large", or "very small",
> depending on how you look at it.  As I explain below, this will save
> the Federal government perhaps $6.8 billion per year in prison
> costs. And, this should produce an ENORMOUS amount of publicity for
> libertarians.   It will "force the issue" for freedom, in a way that
> is not normally considered possible.  And, of course, this system
> could be expanded to cover the state criminal systems also:
> Together, they are about 10x times larger than the Federal system.
> Naturally, the cost will be higher, but if it is worth it for the
> Feds, it would be worth it for the State systems.
> ============================== [something I wrote about a week
> ago]  A few years back, probably 2011  I thought of a marvelous way
> to virtually destroy the Federal criminal "justice" system.  At
> least, the people who make up that system will certainly think it is
> being destroyed.  I mentioned it a few years ago. It might cost
> little more than $10 million per year.  There are many high-profile
> cases which would militate in favor of initiating such a system.
> One, Ross Ulbricht, who was sentenced to two life terms for,
> ostensibly, running the Silk Road website.  Another Kim Dotcom, who
> is threatened with extradition in New Zealand.  Julian Assange, whose
> story is too well known here to need to describe it.  Edward Snowden,
> who is presumably still in Moscow for leaking a huge quantity of NSA
> information.  There are also major drug cases, such as El Chapo,
> Joaquin Guzman.   In some of these cases, the defendant should have
> had a lot of money, such as Ulbricht, although it was lost to the
> Feds.  Kim Dotcom may still be rich.  Julian Assange could probably
> raise a lot of money, Snowden might do so as well.  Guzman, and
> probably many other Mexican drug cartels, could easily raise millions
> per year, if they actually wanted to do this.  Maybe even Martha
> Stewart would hold some residual grudges.  Anyone who thinks he is at
> risk of Federal criminal prosecution would want to see the system
> essentially shut down.   How?  Well, let's go to the statistics.
> Last year, there were 77,152 new criminal defendants in the Federal
> criminal system, see
>  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/28/federal-criminal-prosecutions-fall-to-lowest-level-in-nearly-two-decades/
>  .   According to
>   https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/FY16_Overview_Federal_Criminal_Cases.pdf  ,
> "In fiscal year 2016 the vast majority of offenders (97.3%) pleaded
> guilty."  If that figure can be believed, then there were presumably
> no more than 2.8% x 77,152 criminal trials, or only 2160 trials.
> Perhaps this statistic would surprise most people.  I think the
> average sentence is about 3 years. The ability of the Federal
> criminal system to actually put on criminal trials is very limited.
> There are only a limited number of courts, and judges, and
> prosecutors, and this system must share space and time with civil
> trials.  It is quite possible that it would be very difficult to put
> on much more than those 2160 trials.  That court space has to be
> shared with civil cases, as well.   All, or at least most of those
> people had a right to a jury trial.  If all, or most of those
> defendants were somehow motivated to demand such a trial, rather than
> plead guilty, havoc would ensue.  Even if the number of trials could
> increase, say to about 3000, then the remainder, 77,152-3000, or
> 74,152, would have to walk free, because the system could not
> possibly try them all.  The limitation is not merely court space:
> Trials are "expensive" in preparation, research, and evidence. And
> that led me to yet another "awfully wonderful, wonderfully awful"
> idea, to paraphrase Dr. Seuss and the Grinch.  What would motivate
> all of these people to demand a jury trial? Well, currently they are
> threatened with much more punishment if they plead not guilty and
> demand a trial, and lose.  Like a variant on the "Prisoner's
> dilemma", each one is forced to conclude that it is better to 'take
> the deal' rather than resist, and demand a trial. What would change
> this system around?  Well, the lot of a prisoner in Federal prison is
> poor, if he has no money.  No money, no commissary.  No drinks,
> cookies, crackers, soups, candies, etc.  I know:  I spent 13 years in
> prison, time I shouldn't have spent.  Many enter prison broke.  What
> if they were offered, say, $3000 if they agreed to demand a jury
> trial, and thus forced the government to actually put them on trial,
> form a jury, and put on a trial.  If the government dropped the case,
> or reduced the charges to something that didn't require a trial, the
> defendant would get nothing.   If we assume that the Federal court
> system could put on 3,000 trials, one defendant per trial typically,
> the cost for such a project would be 3,000 x $3,000, or 9 million
> dollars.  It would be limited by the number of actual trials the Feds
> could put on each year, multiplied by the dollar amount that would
> have to be paid to motivate a defendant to demand a trial. Tell each
> new Federal defendant that if he pleads not guilty, and insists on a
> jury trial, and if he actually gets that trial, he will be paid the
> $3,000.  Guilty or not guilty, it won't matter.  Have a trial, get
> the money, simple as that.   I am merely guessing what the 'proper'
> figure would be, in order to motivate such people adequately.  But if
> most people were already demanding a jury trial, and tens of
> thousands of fellow defendants were being freed due to lack of
> ability to give them trials, it shouldn't take a lot of money to
> induce these people to 'stand in line', and demand a trial.  After
> all, they would know that if they didn't get the money, that would
> mean that they would have been freed.  And that's the goal, isn't
> it?  At least for the defendant, that is.   You can imagine what
> would happen.  The Feds would have to ration trials.  Only the most
> "worthy" defendants would get prosecuted.  And yes, there are
> definitely some worthy defendants. I met a few!!   But the total
> number of people who could enter the Federal prison system per year
> would drop from perhaps 75,000 per year to 3,000 per year.  This
> year, there are about 185,300 Federal prisoners.  Drop the input to
> 3,000 per year, and the total population could easily drop to 20,000,
> and perhaps to as low as 10,000, after a few years.  Dozens of
> prisons across the nation would have to close, maybe well over
> 100.   It costs approximately $40,000 to feed and house a Federal
> prisoner.  Most of that money probably goes to prison staff salaries
> and supplies, and most of the rest goes to prison construction.  Drop
> the total Federal prison population from 185,000 to 15,000, and they
> will save about 170,000 multiplied by $40,000, or about $6.8 billion
> dollars per year. Doesn't this sound like a worthy goal? We may
> speculate about who would be motivated to fund such a project.  Give
> them the ability to donate anonymously, and they might act.  There
> might arguably be 200,000 people per year who fear some sort of
> Federal prosecution.  A donation of $50 per year, average, would
> raise $10 million.  It would not take many tax evaders, resistors, or
> avoiders to foot the bill.  People who resented a prior prosecution
> would add up, as well.   Why not? =================================
>
>
>
>
>
>