Jim Bell Interviewed in Anarchapulco
On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 22:56:40 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
so let's say that people refuse to plead 'guilty' - wouldn't they just be kept in jail forever, waiting for their turn? Do you have references showing that if the govt can't do a 'speedy trial' it will set their hostages free?
On Monday, March 19, 2018, 5:06:39 PM PDT, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote: On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 22:56:40 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
so let's say that people refuse to plead 'guilty' - wouldn't they just be kept in jail forever, waiting for their turn? Do you have references showing that if the govt can't do a 'speedy trial' it will set their hostages free?
There is such a thing as the "Speedy Trial Act", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_Trial_Act However, it has as many holes as a piece of Swiss cheese. However, the Feds have a limited capacity to house pre-trial prisoners, a limited number of prosecutors, courtrooms, judges, investigators, etc. Currently they are putting on about 77,000 new defendants each year, probably convicting 76,000 of them, yet only having about 2,500 trials each year. In other words, about 30 convictions for each actual trial. I am hopeful to drop this to maybe 1.5 to 2 convictions for each actual trial. I don't believe that the Feds will be able to put on more than about 5,000 trials, given their limited capacity. Give virtually every defendant a powerful motivation to demand a jury trial, and I think the large majority of them will do so. There would still be plea agreements, but they will be on a far better basis, for the defendants, than before. Jim Bell
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:40:02AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
On Monday, March 19, 2018, 5:06:39 PM PDT, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 22:56:40 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
so let's say that people refuse to plead 'guilty' - wouldn't they just be kept in jail forever, waiting for their turn? Do you have references showing that if the govt can't do a 'speedy trial' it will set their hostages free?
There is such a thing as the "Speedy Trial Act", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_Trial_Act
However, it has as many holes as a piece of Swiss cheese. However, the Feds have a limited capacity to house pre-trial prisoners, a limited number of prosecutors, courtrooms, judges, investigators, etc. Currently they are putting on about 77,000 new defendants each year, probably convicting 76,000 of them, yet only having about 2,500 trials each year. In other words, about 30 convictions for each actual trial. I am hopeful to drop this to maybe 1.5 to 2 convictions for each actual trial.
I don't believe that the Feds will be able to put on more than about 5,000 trials, given their limited capacity. Give virtually every defendant a powerful motivation to demand a jury trial, and I think the large majority of them will do so. There would still be plea agreements, but they will be on a far better basis, for the defendants, than before. Jim Bell
Besides getting rid of government and having some sort of stable utopian anarchy, I think the "gang of 12" or trial by jury, where the jury has absolute discretion to declare "not guilty" and thereby implicitly (or explicitly) throw out legislative clauses or entire acts of parliament, is a practical way forward from where we currently be. Greater sovereignty (actual authority) simply -must- be vested in the people, one way or another. Thus far, TPTB have made much hay in every civil war, every overthrow of an existing tyrant, where the (((bankers))) fund all sides of all wars, by printing their fiat "loans" to unlimited amount, and thereby they don't care who wins, as long as all sides are beholden to their fiats. The fundamental is not compromised government. The fundamental is who is behind the compromised government, who is compromising them (in the past with homosexual compromat, nowadays pedosexual compromat, and otherwise also via murder, and threats of murder of loved ones). It is the authority/sovereignty of individuals, and checks and balances such as the gang of 12, which may be accepted by the majority in order to effect a non-compromised "revolution into the hands of the same old powers that be". Good luck,
Two more from Block Digest... Fed Justice Shutdown https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qED7-7UbwyQ AP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us3SEjUi_2E Jim's ongoing speaking circuit, internet media appearances, and networking efforts are getting these ideas out to the public. The combination of cryptocurrency, copyright, legalization, victimless / paper violation and other communities, into action models like this for good ends could come soon. Especially as cryptocurrency adoption takes off leading to lots of players having some discretionary funds available to throw at whatever projects interest them. Even today that's happening. Just wait till aggregate price stays above $100k, privacy coin tech, DEX, grocery stores, etc happens.
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:40:02 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote: (I forgot to send this reply sooner)
There is such a thing as the "Speedy Trial Act", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_Trial_Act However, it has as many holes as a piece of Swiss cheese.
not surprising I guess. A quick look at that page makes my head hurt.
However, the Feds have a limited capacity to house pre-trial prisoners,
So that may be a good excuse for them to build more jails.
a limited number of prosecutors, courtrooms, judges, investigators, etc. Currently they are putting on about 77,000 new defendants each year, probably convicting 76,000 of them, yet only having about 2,500 trials each year.
increasing the number of judges and other associated criminal parasites may be harder, for bureaucratic reasons I'd guess, so that may be a bottleneck for the system. still your idea seems to depend on two assumptions 1) people would be let off if the state can't judge them (dubious I'd say) 2) enough people will demand a trial. And why? Because you offer them $3000? So, they don't plead 'guilty', they get a trial and they get 3 times the sentence? That is still a big risk. Getting $3000 inflated dollars doesn't cover that risk at all it seems. your idea can only work IF enough people don't plead guilty AND the state doesn't just keep them in jail waiting for a trial. I don't think the part about getting enough people to cooperate can be solved by offering them $3000.
In other words, about 30 convictions for each actual trial. I am hopeful to drop this to maybe 1.5 to 2 convictions for each actual trial. I don't believe that the Feds will be able to put on more than about 5,000 trials, given their limited capacity. Give virtually every defendant a powerful motivation to demand a jury trial, and I think the large majority of them will do so. There would still be plea agreements, but they will be on a far better basis, for the defendants, than before. Jim Bell
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018, 12:07:57 PM PDT, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote: On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:40:02 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote: (I forgot to send this reply sooner)
There is such a thing as the "Speedy Trial Act", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_Trial_Act However, it has as many holes as a piece of Swiss cheese.
not surprising I guess. A quick look at that page makes my head hurt. The "speedy-trial clock" can be tolled (stopped) by as little as a "motion" (an official request to the court) by a party: Either by the prosecution or the defense. While in theory only motions that must be responded to would toll the clock, in reality there are usually a dozen or more 'tolls' that prevent a defendant from getting benefit from this legislation.
However, the Feds have a limited capacity to house pre-trial prisoners,
So that may be a good excuse for them to build more jails.
They can also house prisoners in city or county jails: Actually, they continue to do so. I was housed at Pierce County jail from May through about June 1997, and at Kitsap County jail until about Sept 30, 1997, and then to a newly-constructed Federal jail (Seatac Federal Detention center, in Seatac Washington) from then on. But housing prisoners in existing jails costs money, and buying new jails is slow and costs, too.
a limited number of prosecutors, courtrooms, judges, investigators, etc. Currently they are putting on about 77,000 new defendants each year, probably convicting 76,000 of them, yet only having about 2,500 trials each year.
increasing the number of judges and other associated criminal parasites may be harder, for bureaucratic reasons I'd guess, so that may be a bottleneck for the system.
One of the easiest group of people to convince to take my offer will be the foreigners being charged for illegal re-entry. First, generally they know they are guilty, at least in the opinion of the prosecutor, and they expect to be convicted, and they'd certainly like that $3,000.
still your idea seems to depend on two assumptions 1) people would be let off if the state can't judge them (dubious I'd > say)
Initially, there will be lawyers for many tens of thousands of prisoners who will be demanding speedy trials for their clients, knowing that the Feds won't be able to supply those trials. So, getting them out is the lawyer's task, not mine. I think it will be easier to force an acquittal due to the government's inability to put on a sufficient number of trials.
2) enough people will demand a trial. And why? Because you offer them $3000?
That is merely an estimate as to the payoff; it can be changed as data is collected. If the Feds have to stop adding new defendants into the system, signifying that they are running out of capacity, that will be detected by the regular scans of the PACER.GOV system. If that slowing isn't sufficient, a raise to a higher value of payment is likely going to be necessary.It is not necessary that EVERY prisoner intend to accept the deal: For some of them, they will consider $3,000 to be utterly ignorable. But for a large fraction, those who already expect to be convicted, they would appreciate the money. > So, they don't plead 'guilty', they get a trial I hope that 77,000 don't plead guilty, per year; Maybe 4-5,000 will get a trial. What about the rest?
and they get 3 times the sentence? That is still a big risk. Getting $3000 inflated dollars doesn't cover that risk at all it seems.
There is such a thing as "vindictive sentencing", which at least in theory shouldn't happen. 7.95 4. Vindictive Sentencing | Norton ToobyWhile that doesn't mean that it never does happen, lawyers will likely be on the lookout for instances of it. Refusal to accept a plea agreement SHOULD not justify a higher sentence.
"your idea can only work IF enough people don't plead guilty
What is 'enough people don't plead guilty'? The way I see it, if as few as 5,000 more people (from 2500 currently) refuse to plead guilty, the number of people who cannot be given a trial will go up dramatically. I am thinking it will be hard to put on over 5,000 trials. So if 7,500 plead not guilty, some will have to be released. Once the defendants see that the system is beginning to 'break', the rest will be encouraged to join in. It is true that the government has a big lever: It could start giving out really good deals. True, but the defendants will understand why those deals are being offered.
AND the state doesn't just keep them in jail waiting for a trial.
Initially, this will address the Fed's system, not the states. But the states could be next. And remember, that's the defendants' lawyers job.
I don't think the part about getting enough people to cooperate can be solved by offering them $3000.
Okay, that's an issue which needs to be resolved. How much would it take? Remember, the offer does not have to attract all the defendants. Currently, somebody indicted in the Federal system probably has a 99%+ change of being convicted. Change things so that probability drops to, say, 30% will be a major advance.
In other words, about 30 convictions for each actual trial. I am hopeful to drop this to maybe 1.5 to 2 convictions for each actual trial. I don't believe that the Feds will be able to put on more than about 5,000 trials, given their limited capacity. Give virtually every defendant a powerful motivation to demand a jury trial, and I think the large majority of them will do so. There would still be plea agreements, but they will be on a far better basis, for the defendants, than before. Jim Bell
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 21:28:20 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So, they don't plead 'guilty', they get a trial
I hope that 77,000 don't plead guilty, per year; Maybe 4-5,000 will get a trial. What about the rest?
and they get 3 times the sentence? That is still a big risk. Getting $3000 inflated dollars doesn't cover that risk at all it seems.
There is such a thing as "vindictive sentencing", which at least in theory shouldn't happen. 7.95 4. Vindictive Sentencing | Norton ToobyWhile that doesn't mean that it never does happen,
but isn't that pretty much the basis of the whole system? either confess to whatever they accuse you of, or they will add 5 new charges? so you can confess to, say, smoking pot, and get two years, or you can go to trial for "smoking pot while being near a gun' and that will get you 20 years. You might win at the trial but the chances are (very) low and the stakes a lot higher. I'd assume that's not "vindicative sentencing" because in the later case they are charging you with 'real crimes' and you are getting a 'fair' trial.
lawyers will likely be on the lookout for instances of it. Refusal to accept a plea agreement SHOULD not justify a higher sentence.
"your idea can only work IF enough people don't plead guilty
What is 'enough people don't plead guilty'? The way I see it, if as few as 5,000 more people (from 2500 currently) refuse to plead guilty,
yes, I assume there may be some critical mass number which may be relatively small.
the number of people who cannot be given a trial will go up dramatically. I am thinking it will be hard to put on over 5,000 trials. So if 7,500 plead not guilty, some will have to be released. Once the defendants see that the system is beginning to 'break', the rest will be encouraged to join in.
that's a possibility yes.
It is true that the government has a big lever: It could start giving out really good deals. True, but the defendants will understand why those deals are being offered.
AND the state doesn't just keep them in jail waiting for a trial.
Initially, this will address the Fed's system, not the states.
yeah by 'state' I mean the government, the group of mafiosos who call themselves 'federal government' etc.
But the states could be next. And remember, that's the defendants' lawyers job.
I don't think the part about getting enough people to cooperate can be solved by offering them $3000.
Okay, that's an issue which needs to be resolved. How much would it take? Remember, the offer does not have to attract all the defendants.
yes, though I just realized I overlooked the calculation/got it wrong. If you have 10 millions and distribute them among 5000 people that's 2000 per person. I was thinking the $3000 figure came from 10 millions divided by 70,000 people. So got a zero in math. bottom line is, as far as I understand it, pleading not guilty is a high risk gamble and it doesn't look as if getting $3000 or $30000 or even $300000 is a reasonale price for risking say 10 MORE years in jail. so recapitulating : if a number of people agree to cooperate and demand a trial (even with no money incentive) that can throw a wrench in the system BUT the coordination required to do that seems to be a literal case of the so called prisioner's dilemma. then, on the other hand, the bureaucratic 'legal' procedure may play a crucial role here. If people can plead not guilty but then change their mind then it may be possible for them to see if they can reach a big enouhg number to be effective?
Currently, somebody indicted in the Federal system probably has a 99%+ change of being convicted. Change things so that probability drops to, say, 30% will be a major advance.
In other words, about 30 convictions for each actual trial. I am hopeful to drop this to maybe 1.5 to 2 convictions for each actual trial. I don't believe that the Feds will be able to put on more than about 5,000 trials, given their limited capacity. Give virtually every defendant a powerful motivation to demand a jury trial, and I think the large majority of them will do so. There would still be plea agreements, but they will be on a far better basis, for the defendants, than before. Jim Bell
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018, 8:59:08 PM PDT, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 21:28:20 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is such a thing as "vindictive sentencing", which at least in theory shouldn't happen. 7.95 4. Vindictive Sentencing | Norton ToobyWhile that doesn't mean that it never does happen,
> but isn't that pretty much the basis of the whole system? PRECISELY! But it's a very delicate system that only is able to "work" because prosecutors misuse the discretion that they really aren't given. > either confess to whatever they accuse you of, or they will add 5 new charges? Still, what about the trial? Actually, "trials"? If you merely assume that they will, eventually, get a trial, then you've skipped an important step.
so you can confess to, say, smoking pot, and get two years, or you > can go to trial for "smoking pot while being near a gun' and that will get you 20 years. You might win at the trial but the chances are (very) low and the stakes a lot higher.
Which trial? If there are only 5,000 trials and 77,000 defendants, who doesn't get a trial?
I'd assume that's not "vindicative sentencing" because in the later case they are charging you with 'real crimes' and you are getting a 'fair' trial.
The principle of "vindictive sentencing" is that they aren't supposed to be able to sentence more subsequent to an appeal. (Which amounts to punishing people for exercising their Constitutional rights). Demanding a trial is also exercising a Constitutional right. [stuff deleted]
I don't think the part about getting enough people to cooperate can be solved by offering them $3000.
Okay, that's an issue which needs to be resolved. How much would it take? Remember, the offer does not have to attract all the defendants.
> yes, though I just realized I overlooked the calculation/got it > wrong. If you have 10 millions and distribute them among 5000 people
that's 2000 per person. I was thinking the $3000 figure came from 10 > millions divided by 70,000 people. So got a zero in math.
Well, the numbers are based on estimates. The current number of trials which are put on is 2,500 per year. I don't they they will exceed 4,000/year, but we can speculate that they could do 5,000/year.
bottom line is, as far as I understand it, pleading not guilty is a high risk gamble
The key word you use? "Is". Currently. Now. Under existing circumstances. The way things are. Today. Currently, only about 2,500 trials occur each year. We can assume this is not their limit, but I think their limit is under 5,000/year. So, since there are only 2,500 trials, if a new defendant is considering demanding a trial, he knows virtually for certain that the government will be able to give him one. If, instead, the government is subjected to my project, and they are giving trials at what is virtually their limit (say, 5,000), and there are thousands of other defendants who are on the list demanding trials, "just one more person" asking for a trial is far less likely to actually get it. So, at that point, I think that "pleading not guilty" is no longer going to be a "high risk gamble".
and it doesn't look as if getting $3000 or $30000 or even $300000 is a reasonale price for risking say 10 MORE years in jail.
The current average Federal sentence is about 2.8 years. I would suggest that most defendants, even if they plead not guilty, cannot expect to be sentenced to much more than this. > so recapitulating : if a number of people agree to cooperate and > demand a trial (even with no money incentive) that can throw a wrench > in the system BUT the coordination required to do that seems to be a > literal case of the so called prisioner's dilemma. Well, I'd say it's worth trying.Consider a specific example, Kim Dotcom has recently won part of his case, and is unlikely to be extradited. But if things had gone badly, and he had been extradited and brought to trial in America, he would be able to "purchase" perhaps 3-4,000 trials (for others) with only about 4% of his $200 million (?) wealth. He could clog up the system for a year. I would say that his best tactic would be to do exactly that. > then, on the other hand, the bureaucratic 'legal' procedure may play a crucial role here. If people can plead not guilty but then change their mind then it may be possible for them to see if they can reach a big enouhg number to be effective? The operators of the system will be able to monitor the number of new defendants on a weekly or even daily basis. It will very soon be apparent how well the system is operating. And, I believe that once the system is "working", and making publicity, there will be no lack of donations. Jim Bell
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 05:28:19 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018, 8:59:08 PM PDT, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 21:28:20 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is such a thing as "vindictive sentencing", which at least in theory shouldn't happen. 7.95 4. Vindictive Sentencing | Norton ToobyWhile that doesn't mean that it never does happen,
> but isn't that pretty much the basis of the whole system?
PRECISELY! But it's a very delicate system that only is able to "work" because prosecutors misuse the discretion that they really aren't given.
Is that the case? Seems to me that prosecutors have the discretion to do whatever they want. Just like jefferson and washington founded a slave society. All 100& perfectly 'legal'. By definition. Their own definition, upheld by their guns. Also, I haven't researched it yet, but seems that this complete travesty of extorting confessions has been going on for a long time, if not since 1776 or before that? Anyway, I'd certainly call the process of extorting confessions 'vindictive sentencing' just like I call taxation theft, but I doubt the government would admit what they actually do.
> either confess to whatever they accuse you of, or they will add 5 new charges?
Still, what about the trial? Actually, "trials"? If you merely assume that they will, eventually, get a trial, then you've skipped an important step.
And that step is?
so you can confess to, say, smoking pot, and get two years, or you > can go to trial for "smoking pot while being near a gun' and that will get you 20 years. You might win at the trial but the chances are (very) low and the stakes a lot higher.
Which trial? If there are only 5,000 trials and 77,000 defendants, who doesn't get a trial?
I'm not following. I was just describing how the system works in practice. Confess or go to trial for more fake charges you can't fight. I wasn't talking about what would happen under your system, but about what happens now. In order to highlight what the 'incentives' for prisioners are.
I'd assume that's not "vindicative sentencing" because in the later case they are charging you with 'real crimes' and you are getting a 'fair' trial.
The principle of "vindictive sentencing" is that they aren't supposed to be able to sentence more subsequent to an appeal. (Which amounts to punishing people for exercising their Constitutional rights). Demanding a trial is also exercising a Constitutional right.
yeah but there's no appeal here? Again, you are charged with A, confess, get a 'benign' sentence. OR You are charged with A, don't confess, get then charged with A + B + C, and then get your first (way longer) sentence. That's how the USA 'justice' system works (at all levels if I understand correctly) so it must be 'legal'.
bottom line is, as far as I understand it, pleading not guilty is a high risk gamble
The key word you use? "Is". Currently. Now. Under existing circumstances. The way things are. Today. Currently, only about 2,500 trials occur each year. We can assume this is not their limit, but I think their limit is under 5,000/year. So, since there are only 2,500 trials, if a new defendant is considering demanding a trial, he knows virtually for certain that the government will be able to give him one. If, instead, the government is subjected to my project, and they are giving trials at what is virtually their limit (say, 5,000), and there are thousands of other defendants who are on the list demanding trials, "just one more person" asking for a trial is far less likely to actually get it. So, at that point, I think that "pleading not guilty" is no longer going to be a "high risk gamble".
Yes I get that. I also mentioned there must be some critical mass for it to work. So far so good. I'm also pointing out how things look from the perspective of ONE guy who doesn't know for sure if your system is going to work. So unless you've actually jammed the court system, pleading not guilty IS still a high risk gamble.
and it doesn't look as if getting $3000 or $30000 or even $300000 is a reasonale price for risking say 10 MORE years in jail.
The current average Federal sentence is about 2.8 years. I would suggest that most defendants, even if they plead not guilty, cannot expect to be sentenced to much more than this.
I looked at a couple of articles. Here's a case "In 2004 Marnail Washington, a 22-year-old with no criminal history, was sentenced to 40 years after conviction of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and two §924(c) counts based on possessing, but not using, guns in connection with his drug offenses. That is, 30 years of his 40-year sentence were on gun counts. " those '924' charges were added AFTER he pleaded not guilty. https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/12/05/offer-you-cant-refuse/how-us-federal-p...
> so recapitulating : if a number of people agree to cooperate and > demand a trial (even with no money incentive) that can throw a wrench > in the system BUT the coordination required to do that seems to be a > literal case of the so called prisioner's dilemma.
Well, I'd say it's worth trying. Consider a specific example, Kim Dotcom has recently won part of his case, and is unlikely to be extradited. But if things had gone badly, and he had been extradited and brought to trial in America, he would be able to "purchase" perhaps 3-4,000 trials (for others) with only about 4% of his $200 million (?) wealth.
so 200,000,000 times 0.04 = 8,000,000 8,000,000 / 4000 = that's 2000 per person. Again, do you think 4000 people would risk way longer sentences for $2000....? Either I am missing something obvious or you are...
He could clog up the system for a year. I would say that his best tactic would be to do exactly that.
ONLY if the people who plead not guilty are able to plead guilty later and avoid longer sentences.
> then, on the other hand, the bureaucratic 'legal' procedure may play a crucial role here. If people can plead not guilty but then change their mind then it may be possible for them to see if they can reach a big enouhg number to be effective?
The operators of the system will be able to monitor the number of new defendants on a weekly or even daily basis.
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to the details/timing of the 'legal' procedure dictated by the state.
It will very soon be apparent how well the system is operating. And, I believe that once the system is "working", and making publicity, there will be no lack of donations. Jim Bell
participants (4)
-
grarpamp -
jim bell -
juan -
Zenaan Harkness