Jim Bell's adversity

Sun Oct 20 00:32:21 PDT 2019

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 <zen at freedbms.net> 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-errors-about-me-in-your-book/  
> 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).

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.