From: juan On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 18:51:39 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <[1]jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: >> [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch Theirs is a >> marvelous statement of the problem, but sadly it does not offer any >> kind of solution. Therefore, I am convinced that HRW will view >> positively my idea. > Oh yes. I'm sure a proxy of the pentagon would > love 'your idea'. You surely are not delusional eh Jim. Human Rights watch is complaining about the ease with which the Fed Courts can convict Federal defendants, a problem that has long been known. They state the problem very well, focussing on the issue of drug crimes. Yet, they do not even hint at a solution. Assuming they are serious about wanting a solution (why should we suppose otherwise?) I will be showing up with a solution which might cost as little as $10 million per year for the entire country. What's not to like? >> Interestingly, it describe a funder as being George Soros, > Wow! That's so strange. Why would a world leader of > judeo-fascism fund a 'non govewrnment' proxy of the pentagon? I pointed to Soros merely because the HRW Wikipedia page cited him as a major contributor. He is far from the only person capable, alone, of financing the fix for the problem. There are many others. > And what sort of 'news' does HWR publish...let's see.... > [3]https://www.hrw.org/the-day-in-human-rights/2017/10/27 > "Syrian Government Responsible for Chemical Attack" Yes? I am not vouching for the accuracy of anything else HRW publishes. > Surprusing! Chemically pure US military propaganda. Just the > kind of stuff that non-delusional Jim Bell likes to > promote...Jim was ranting about Syria IIRC. > So on second thougts it's hard to tell if HWR would be > interested in 'your idea'. On one hand you are aligned > with their fascist program. On the other hand, from the point > of view of advertising, you are a liability.... You are being contradictory. You claim I'm "with" them, and then you claim I'm not. Decide on a position and stick to it. > The importance of the involvement of HRW will not be as > a sole source of funding; rather, I think it will open the door to > its own funders, such as George Soros. I have little doubt that HRW > will ratify my idea. > YEESSSS. I'm 100% sure soros will love you! Hey Jim shouldn't > soros be #2 on the murder prediction markets? If Soros (or any other person) refuses, this will reveal information about him. HRW has already identified the problem. Should he refuse to assist in a solution? If he does, you can use that refusal to explain how he's a tool of [fill in the blank]. > 1) trump > 2) soros > What deos a libertarian like you have to say about soros Jim? I don't have to like any specific person to get help from him. Jim Bell > > ============================How to accomplish the below > project: INFORMATIONAL REQUIREMENT: There is an online system called > "PACER.GOV", which provides information on Federal Court records, > both civil and criminal. This system can be searched to identify new > Federal Criminal defendants, and likely their current addresses. (in > jail, perhaps?) These records show full names, possibly addresses > (home) as well, and the specific court in which the defendant was > indicted. While I don't yet know this information, a given defendant > for a given court is probably: 1. In unusual cases, is "bailed out", > and allowed to live at home. His prior address will probably be > valid.2. In the usual cases, he is arrested, and held in some sort > of jail.2a. This might be some sort of Federal criminal jail, such > as Seatac FDC in Seatac, Washington state. 2b. Or, it might be in > some sort of county or city jail. What is needed is to identify his > full name and current physical address, and possibly the name and > address of his attorney. In 2016, there were about 77,000 new > defendants, which amounts to 210 new defendants per calendar day. > That attorney MIGHT be cooperative, and forward a letter to his > client. At that point, all such newly-identified Federal criminal > defendants should be mailed a letter, making the following offer: > (announcement?) Dear Sir: Our records indicate that you are a > newly-charged Federal Criminal defendant. We have what we hope will > be some good news, a change from the bad news you have gotten. We > have a project ongoing to encourage the use of the Jury Trial system > in the Federal Criminal Court system. In 2016, of about 77,000 new > defendants, 97.3% of those pleaded guilty. We think that's wrong. > The large majority of those people were effectively extorted to plead > guilty by threat of an increased sentence. We believe that the only > people the Federal Criminal system should be able to convict and > sentence are those who went through a jury trial. If that were to > happen, the total number of people sentenced might drop by a factor > of 20x. Most people in your position would have to be released > without further charge. Therefore, we are telling you, and every > other Federal Criminal defendant that we can find, that IF you plead > not-guilty, and IF you demand a jury trial, and IF you receive that > jury trial, we will be paying you $3,000 (three thousand dollars). > This happens, regardless of whether you are found guilty or > not-guilty. We encourage you to spread this message to any other > Federal criminal defendant you may happen to meet. We have included > extra copies of this letter for you to give to them. Further, > please have your friends and family check out our website at: > www.//liber....project.org. We believe that the Federal Court > system can probably only put on 3,000 criminal trials per year. If > "everyone" who is charged pleads not-guilty, and then insists on a > jury trial, then the vast majority of those defendants will have to > have their charges dropped. That's our intention. If you plead not > guilty and insist on a jury trial, and receive it, you will get the > $3,000. Our intention is that the vast majority of defendants will > have their charges dropped and they will have to be released. If > your charges are dropped, or reduced below the point that you can > demand a jury trial, or you plead guilty, then you will not receive > any money from us. But, hopefully you will get released, which is > the goal. You do not need to do anything to "accept" this > arrangement, But, we encourage you to respond to us by filling out > the form, included, and returning it to us. It will speed the > process. Sincerely,--------------------- Of course, there > are 'mailing list' companies that make it a business to collect > information and sell it. But this is a very odd and selective list. > It is not "commercial": Ordinarily, it may not be possible to make > money on such a list. Nevertheless, it may be possible to obtain > this information (names and addresses of new Federal criminal > defendants) via some existing source. FUNDING: The amount of money > required for this project is: 1. Administration. Perhaps 10 people > full time, paid with expenses perhaps $100,000 each. Or, perhaps $1 > million per year. Each person can work from home. No central > office should be needed. Mailing might be done automatically, using > some automated commercial service, or perhaps manually. 2. Actual > reward money: This will be limited by the product of the number of > Federal Criminal trials that the Feds can put on yearly. Maybe that > is 3,000, but shouldn't be much more. Multiplied by the amount of > money that would be necessary to offer to each defendant, to get a > large fraction of the Federal Criminal Defendants to plead > not-guilty, and demand a jury trial. Currently I estimate that to > be $3,000. It might be lower or higher, of course. While certainly > there are defendants for whom a reward of $3,000 won't be significant > or relevant, I believe that the large majority of them will be swayed > by such an offer. And it is important that these people learn and > know that EVERY new Federal Criminal defendant is being given the > same offer. This will encourage them to act, as if they are in a > group, and all will demand jury trials. Of course, it is my > intention to virtually shut down the Federal Criminal "Justice" > system, or at least drop its capacity for convicting people by a > factor of about 20x. Who should be willing to give? It is not my > intention that the burden of this project should be shouldered on > libertarians, alone. Fortunately, I think there are many potential > sources of funding, each with their own peculiar motivation: A: > "Liberals", and especially "Hollywood Liberals". Newly rather beaten > up by the Harvey Weinstein fiasco, liberals are famously in favor of > illegal aliens (err...undocumented immigrants). While there are > other ways to simply eject such people, one way requires a criminal > trial: "Illegal re-entry", which is a felony, and conviction of that > offense requires a trial, and they could insist on a jury trial. > Liberals also should generally be against laws against > currently-illegal drugs. B: "Conservatives", including > "Libertarians", may actually believe in the 2nd Amendment, and > believe that there should not be "gun offenses" except for people who > actively employ a gun in the commission of a crime. ("Felons" were > not prohibited from owning guns until the early 1930's, and even then > the prohibition was against "violent felons". It was not until 1968 > that "felons", in general, were prohibited from owning guns.) C: > "Libertarians" will be against laws prohibiting victimless crimes, > such as drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. The figure of $10 > million per year can either be seen as "very large", or "very small", > depending on how you look at it. As I explain below, this will save > the Federal government perhaps $6.8 billion per year in prison > costs. And, this should produce an ENORMOUS amount of publicity for > libertarians. It will "force the issue" for freedom, in a way that > is not normally considered possible. And, of course, this system > could be expanded to cover the state criminal systems also: > Together, they are about 10x times larger than the Federal system. > Naturally, the cost will be higher, but if it is worth it for the > Feds, it would be worth it for the State systems. > ============================== [something I wrote about a week > ago] A few years back, probably 2011 I thought of a marvelous way > to virtually destroy the Federal criminal "justice" system. At > least, the people who make up that system will certainly think it is > being destroyed. I mentioned it a few years ago. It might cost > little more than $10 million per year. There are many high-profile > cases which would militate in favor of initiating such a system. > One, Ross Ulbricht, who was sentenced to two life terms for, > ostensibly, running the Silk Road website. Another Kim Dotcom, who > is threatened with extradition in New Zealand. Julian Assange, whose > story is too well known here to need to describe it. Edward Snowden, > who is presumably still in Moscow for leaking a huge quantity of NSA > information. There are also major drug cases, such as El Chapo, > Joaquin Guzman. In some of these cases, the defendant should have > had a lot of money, such as Ulbricht, although it was lost to the > Feds. Kim Dotcom may still be rich. Julian Assange could probably > raise a lot of money, Snowden might do so as well. Guzman, and > probably many other Mexican drug cartels, could easily raise millions > per year, if they actually wanted to do this. Maybe even Martha > Stewart would hold some residual grudges. Anyone who thinks he is at > risk of Federal criminal prosecution would want to see the system > essentially shut down. How? Well, let's go to the statistics. > Last year, there were 77,152 new criminal defendants in the Federal > criminal system, see > [4]http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/28/federal-criminal-pro secutions-fall-to-lowest-level-in-nearly-two-decades/ > . According to > [5]https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publicatio ns/research-publications/2017/FY16_Overview_Federal_Criminal_Cases.pdf , > "In fiscal year 2016 the vast majority of offenders (97.3%) pleaded > guilty." If that figure can be believed, then there were presumably > no more than 2.8% x 77,152 criminal trials, or only 2160 trials. > Perhaps this statistic would surprise most people. I think the > average sentence is about 3 years. The ability of the Federal > criminal system to actually put on criminal trials is very limited. > There are only a limited number of courts, and judges, and > prosecutors, and this system must share space and time with civil > trials. It is quite possible that it would be very difficult to put > on much more than those 2160 trials. That court space has to be > shared with civil cases, as well. All, or at least most of those > people had a right to a jury trial. If all, or most of those > defendants were somehow motivated to demand such a trial, rather than > plead guilty, havoc would ensue. Even if the number of trials could > increase, say to about 3000, then the remainder, 77,152-3000, or > 74,152, would have to walk free, because the system could not > possibly try them all. The limitation is not merely court space: > Trials are "expensive" in preparation, research, and evidence. And > that led me to yet another "awfully wonderful, wonderfully awful" > idea, to paraphrase Dr. Seuss and the Grinch. What would motivate > all of these people to demand a jury trial? Well, currently they are > threatened with much more punishment if they plead not guilty and > demand a trial, and lose. Like a variant on the "Prisoner's > dilemma", each one is forced to conclude that it is better to 'take > the deal' rather than resist, and demand a trial. What would change > this system around? Well, the lot of a prisoner in Federal prison is > poor, if he has no money. No money, no commissary. No drinks, > cookies, crackers, soups, candies, etc. I know: I spent 13 years in > prison, time I shouldn't have spent. Many enter prison broke. What > if they were offered, say, $3000 if they agreed to demand a jury > trial, and thus forced the government to actually put them on trial, > form a jury, and put on a trial. If the government dropped the case, > or reduced the charges to something that didn't require a trial, the > defendant would get nothing. If we assume that the Federal court > system could put on 3,000 trials, one defendant per trial typically, > the cost for such a project would be 3,000 x $3,000, or 9 million > dollars. It would be limited by the number of actual trials the Feds > could put on each year, multiplied by the dollar amount that would > have to be paid to motivate a defendant to demand a trial. Tell each > new Federal defendant that if he pleads not guilty, and insists on a > jury trial, and if he actually gets that trial, he will be paid the > $3,000. Guilty or not guilty, it won't matter. Have a trial, get > the money, simple as that. I am merely guessing what the 'proper' > figure would be, in order to motivate such people adequately. But if > most people were already demanding a jury trial, and tens of > thousands of fellow defendants were being freed due to lack of > ability to give them trials, it shouldn't take a lot of money to > induce these people to 'stand in line', and demand a trial. After > all, they would know that if they didn't get the money, that would > mean that they would have been freed. And that's the goal, isn't > it? At least for the defendant, that is. You can imagine what > would happen. The Feds would have to ration trials. Only the most > "worthy" defendants would get prosecuted. And yes, there are > definitely some worthy defendants. I met a few!! But the total > number of people who could enter the Federal prison system per year > would drop from perhaps 75,000 per year to 3,000 per year. This > year, there are about 185,300 Federal prisoners. Drop the input to > 3,000 per year, and the total population could easily drop to 20,000, > and perhaps to as low as 10,000, after a few years. Dozens of > prisons across the nation would have to close, maybe well over > 100. It costs approximately $40,000 to feed and house a Federal > prisoner. Most of that money probably goes to prison staff salaries > and supplies, and most of the rest goes to prison construction. Drop > the total Federal prison population from 185,000 to 15,000, and they > will save about 170,000 multiplied by $40,000, or about $6.8 billion > dollars per year. Doesn't this sound like a worthy goal? We may > speculate about who would be motivated to fund such a project. Give > them the ability to donate anonymously, and they might act. There > might arguably be 200,000 people per year who fear some sort of > Federal prosecution. A donation of $50 per year, average, would > raise $10 million. It would not take many tax evaders, resistors, or > avoiders to foot the bill. People who resented a prior prosecution > would add up, as well. Why not? ================================= > > > > > > References 1. mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch 3. https://www.hrw.org/the-day-in-human-rights/2017/10/27 4. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/28/federal-criminal-prosecutions-fall-to-lowest-level-in-nearly-two-decades/ 5. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/FY16_Overview_Federal_Criminal_Cases.pdf