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:///     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 To: Andrew Greenberg 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" 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:///   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 To: Andrew Greenberg 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