On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 06:08:02AM +0000, jim bell wrote:

On Saturday, October 19, 2019, 07:31:14 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

Hi Jim, I want to know - were you ever offered any "sell out" type of 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

Indeed. High corruption. And might we collectively add, damn bro, what a stand you took! That was 18 years or something right? Because you would NOT plead guilty? THAT, is a serious stand for principle! OK. So. You have a moral and ethical claim (not yet "made out") against the US government. You might be familiar with the two documents required to begin any court case? - your story (e.g. affidavit, deposition, etc) - your originating process (Originating Motion, Grand Jury Summons, Summons, Claim, etc) In your case, your originating process will be a Claim (or whatever your chosen court might call that). There are usually of course other documents eventually needed, like Submissions, summary of legal argument, citations of laws or precedents upon which you rely, and possibly "interlocutory" proceedings or simple adjournment applications, applications for access to documents and records (e.g. Subpoena the government for the TRANSCRIPT of your "hearings") etc. It's all a little time consuming, but quite straightforward - and of course, some judges will give you the run around, make you think you need to make some application or other - if that happens, you may find a sympathetic or rights-principled MP or AG (you may not, but there are a few around, if you can find one). Most folks are "scared off" from actually handling the corruption against themselves, by the "threat" of endless years of court case and "100s of thousands of dollars" for legal fees, but the truth is that the hardest thing in any legal document is the double negative assertion. The key, the real key, is producing your affidavit (deposition) in a clear and comprehensive way, with a full set (as full as you have access to) of exhibits (/attachments /annexures). It's very simple algorithmicly - just a date ascending (or descending) set of numbered statements beginning "On [or about] DATE, I [did | phoned | received | read | appeared in court | saw | heard | etc] blah blah blah...". You of all people probably know how simple it is. And most courts (in Aus at least) provide templates for download. Once that's in place, and you whip up an originating process document (also usually available for download), you are on your way to that hallowed court case number. In the highest courts (Supreme Court in the USA, High Court in Aus), they only accept for filing a new case "by leave" and almost always based "on appeal from a lower court" - so this means you really must start in a lower court, which is also important to get a bit of practice, and so that each opponent (in particular you) can get an idea of the arguments the other side will bring against you to oppose you. Starting a couple rungs down, gives you a few bites at the cherry, so to speak. The hardest part (in my 15 year journey at least), has been the feelz - the emotional confront when faced with bald faced corruption, evil and antipathy towards me and the stand I take. There are some in the system who wish to support those who stand on principle. Ascertaining who you are standing before each time you appear in court, is an art/skill/challenge/useful exercise. If they do something you don't understand, object, and have them explain the step, and why they are taking the step. Always object if something is not right - at the least, ask for an adjournment to give time to respond to the other side, time to respond to the court itself! YOU are the authority when you appear, and so except that you hand over your authority to a Lawyer or Solicitor etc, a position which is not yours, cannot be put to the court. If you want money to achieve one or another goal in this world, your claim of damages for what was done to you by the US government via its proxy of a corrupt prosecutor, is at least one pathway to achieving that, and possibly to assisting in achieving a sense of closure or resolution to that chapter.

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 09:14:10PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

My comments inline: On Sunday, October 20, 2019, 12:32:30 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 06:08:02AM +0000, jim bell wrote:

...

  On Saturday, October 19, 2019, 07:31:14 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness wrote:    

...

...

Hi Jim, I want to know - were you ever offered any "sell out" type of 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

...

Indeed. High corruption.

...

And might we collectively add, damn bro, what a stand you took!

...

That was 18 years or something right? Because you would NOT plead guilty? A total of about 13 years, from May 1997 through March 12, 2012, spread over a period of about 15 years.

...

THAT, is a serious stand for principle!

Keep in mind that I should have EASILY been able to destroy the government's case, if I had known about the pre-April-2000 existence of the 9th Circuit appeals case 99-30210, which I believe was re-forged in about April 2000.  They had faked an ongoing 'appeals case', ostensibly in my name, and ostensibly I was representing myself ('pro-se'), but in reality the dozens of mailings that should have been coming to me were concealed by government agents.  Court people, Federal Bureau of Prisons people, etc.  Completely unexpectedly, in March 2000, I demanded (in a letter to the 9th Circuit) an 'appeal' for my 'probation violation' case.  That, I much later realized, put these government crooks in a major bind:  Ordinary, I would have to demand an appeal within 10 court-days, excluding weekends and holidays. (So I was WAY too late!!!)  But it turns out that the Government was actually in the process of giving me a forged-and-fake 'appeal', which they had been doing since about June 1999, so they couldn't turn around and deny me an appeal!! Eventually, after I was released in April 2000, I was given a (colluding) lawyer, Jonathan Solovy (Seattle) who apparently agreed to conceal the pre-April-2000 faked existence of appeal 99-30210.   Had he asked even one question, like "Jim, it looks like you've been handing this case since June 1999 pro-se.  What was your theory of appeal?"   I would then have said, "I don't know what you are talking about.  I initiated this case in March 2000 by a letter I sent to the 9th Circuit, demanding an appeal case."    That simple revelation would have blown apart everything.   As is was, I only discovered the pre-April 2000 existence of case 99-30210 in about June 2003.   So, Solovy was a major crook who enabled the government to convict me.  

"OK. So. You have a moral and ethical claim (not yet "made out") against the US government."

Larger than you can possibly imagine !!!

"You might be familiar with the two documents required to begin any court case?

- your story (e.g. affidavit, deposition, etc)

- your originating process (Originating Motion, Grand Jury Summons,   Summons, Claim, etc)"

See my lawsuit, which I wrote over a period of about year, refiling early July 2003.https://cryptome.org/jdb/jdb-v-usa-ric.htm   Look for the series of "Claims".    There are a very few references to appeal 99-30210, because I just learned of the forgery of the appeal 99-30210 about June 20, 2003, and I had to file the new version about July 10, 2003.  '

Note:  These "Claims" are not well-formed, from a lawyer's standpoint; they are mostly a diary of these events, because I recognized that my memory was not going to be perfect, so it was important to get the details down, not merely on paper, but also on the Internet, soon enough. BTW, I wrote about 99.9% of this lawsuit, with no attorney assistance.  Only about the last 11 lines, someone else wrote.  

First claim:

EVENTS

All previous pages and paragraphs herein are incorporated inclusive.

Claim #1

Beginning at a concealed time unknown to plaintiffs, various government agents including Defendants Jeff Gordon and Steven Walsh but not limited to these, with the assistance of unknown-named private citizens, began to act as individuals and as groups and as a group, in all their respective capacities, in a collusion and a conspiracy against private citizens including the plaintiffs in a scheme or plan in order to deny and violate their Constitutional rights.

These victim private citizens included attendees of a Portland, Oregon political/social/legal group called the "Multnomah County Common Law Court", (hereafter MCCLC), which met during the late 1996 through 1997 time frame, and continued until a date and time unknown to Plaintiff James Dalton Bell. The group of government agents and private-citizen co-conspirators is hereafter in some cases referred to as the Infiltrators, and the group of MCCLC attendees and other victims is referred to as Citizens. -------------------------------------------------  end of quote --------------------------------------------------------------

Stunning. Absolutely stunning stuff! And still to today, "main stream" media blackout. Well, today is a new day - I encourage you to create a new affidavit/deposition, attaching/exhibiting all previous documents, get it signed and witnessed, and begin your claim anew. There can be no statute of limitations on such government corruption, and with the two lame stream parties fighting amongst themselves, there's a chance you'll get an actual proper case going this time...

On Monday, October 21, 2019, 06:16:53 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:46:54AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 09:14:10PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

...

First claim:

EVENTS

All previous pages and paragraphs herein are incorporated inclusive.

Claim #1

Beginning at a concealed time unknown to plaintiffs, various government agents including Defendants Jeff Gordon and Steven Walsh but not limited to these, with the assistance of unknown-named private citizens, began to act as individuals and as groups and as a group, in all their respective capacities, in a collusion and a conspiracy against private citizens including the plaintiffs in a scheme or plan in order to deny and violate their Constitutional rights.

These victim private citizens included attendees of a Portland, Oregon political/social/legal group called the "Multnomah County Common Law Court", (hereafter MCCLC), which met during the late 1996 through 1997 time frame, and continued until a date and time unknown to Plaintiff James Dalton Bell. The group of government agents and private-citizen co-conspirators is hereafter in some cases referred to as the Infiltrators, and the group of MCCLC attendees and other victims is referred to as Citizens. -------------------------------------------------  end of quote --------------------------------------------------------------

Stunning. Absolutely stunning stuff! And still to today, "main stream" media blackout.

And that INCLUDES Declan McCullagh.  Remember him?   He had the prospect of covering a truly gigantic story, but he flinched.  In early 2002, he claimed he would visit me at USP Lompoc, to cover my story,  He never showed.  And he lied about it:  Claimed that he couldn't, 'at the last moment', but in reality he didn't even bother to fill out the paperwork to have a visit approved...and that would have had to happen 2 weeks prior to the visit. I don't object to the mere lack of a visit:  I objected to the fact that he apparently went from covering the story...WHEN the government would have WANTED him to cover it...to suddenly abandoning the story once I got 'convicted'.

Well, today is a new day - I encourage you to create a new affidavit/deposition, attaching/exhibiting all previous documents, get it signed and witnessed, and begin your claim anew. Eventually...

There can be no statute of limitations on such government corruption, and with the two lame stream parties fighting amongst themselves, there's a chance you'll get an actual proper case going this time...

Timing is really important Jim - the folks who did you over in their

Limitations is very complicated.  According to a 1937 Supreme Court decision, Erie Railroad v. Tompkins  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Railroad_Co._v._Tompkins  the SC held that if a federal law had no explicit rule attached, Federal courts had to 'borrow' the corresponding rule from State law.  This included the limitations period ("statute of limitations").    That would have been great in the State of Washington, which up to 1993 'tolled' (stopped the clock) on a civil suit while a person was a prisoner.  Here's a good handling of the general problem, not specifically on Washington:   https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1583&context=ilj Before 1993, being a prisoner tolled the limitations period.  In 1993, that law was repealed. https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/1993/aug/15/wa-repeals-cons-tolling-sta... I knew about this in 2001, so I knew that I couldn't wait. pathetic star chamber, may not (all?) be holding seats of powertoday. Yes, I knew how important knowing these statutes was.

Then again, other similarly criminal humans may have replaced those who've moved on."

Notwithstanding, it's a fair bet that the first time you attempted to file your claim, those who had most to lose by your claim running in

No doubt.. the courts, were still in direct power.

And so although a good experience, that may not have been the wisest time to bring your claim - as in, today might have much better chance of success for you.

This is my assumptive hope...

I believe I will eventually get what amounts to 'justice'.   AP?

If you do deign to launch your claim at this time, and you have any questions at all, feel free to send me any question at all either on or off list - some I can answer, but only generally (Australian jurisdiction here, and IANAL).

Also, you may happen across someone in the US who is of good spirit and has some knowledge (even just on legal process) who may be willing to assist you.

Well, the lawsuit I wrote in 2003 should have been plenty...

On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 06:08:02 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

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,

not sure what hypothetical 'system' you're referring to, but anything based on 'deals' is unhinged. As far as I know this 'plea bargain' stuff exists only in the american shithole and is of course as legitimate as slavery. 'plea bargaining' simply means that the state uses extortion to get their victims to confess to whatever imaginary crimes the state comes up with. It's the very same method used by the inquisition. obviously such a system doesn't need to be 'reformed' but completely abolished.

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