Hi Jim, I want to know - were you ever offered any "sell out" type of
On Saturday, October 19, 2019, 07:31:14 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
option from the prosecutors who put you in jail for all those years?
The only 'deal' I was given was an offer for 2 years if I pled guilty, in 2001. I refused, because I knew that the government was corrupt. What I didn't know, at the time, was that this corrupt government (and a previous corrupt attorney) engaged in a fake "appeal" case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, case number 99-30210. Do a Google search for 'jim bell "99-30210". https://cpunks.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/jim-bell-to-andy-greenberg-your-erro...
This explains how I found out that Andy Greenberg is such a jerk. Clearly he wants to avoid covering what would have been a fascinating story, but one that puts the Federal government in a very bad light.
And here's the lawsuit I wrote, until June 2003. https://cryptome.org/jdb/jdb-v-usa-ric.htm
I also didn't know that my then-current corrupt attorney was strenuously working on the Federal government's behalf, and would work with the judge to prohibit me from putting on MY defense. The only 'defense' I received was the one the Feds wanted to allow me. Essentially nothing.
These events are why I will demand a change in the system before I allow it to operate: Whenever a person is charged with a crime, the government MUST offer a deal, including a specific time of imprisonment. If the defendant refuses the deal, and if he is convicted, he cannot be sentenced to any time greater than the plea deal defined, plus 10% or 6 months.
And, the jury will have to state what the maximum punishment their verdict will allow, and if that is lower than the deal, that jury's limitation will control.
The reason is that the current system forces people to plead guilty based on the threat of far greater punishment than what the government would otherwise be satisfied with. Take away that threat, and the government will have no choice but give realistic plea agreements, knowing that the defendant has a free choice to refuse, without what amounts to retaliation.
Jim Bell
