From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 18:44:35 +0800
To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Fw: Jim Bell Sentenced (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.971214013450.2536A-100000@gabber.c2.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19971214022601.037fc8dc@pop.sirius.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Phillip M. Hallam-Baker <hallam@ai.mit.edu> wrote:

>FC folk may find this interesting. What Jim Bell was charged
>with and admitted was planning and executing attacks on the
>IRS.

No, that's not correct. He was charged with (and plead guilty to)
obstructing an IRS agent (26 USC 7212(a)) and misuse of a Social Security
number (42 USC 408). The "attack" he admitted to executing consisted of
applying a stinky chemical to the doormat of an IRS office. (see
<http://jya.com/jimbell-dock4.htm> for more.)

>His 'Assasination Politics' essay was used to demonstrate
>motive (amongst other things).

That doesn't make any sense - it could conceivably have been introduced to
demonstrate intent, or state of mind .. but not motive, at least in the
absence of evidence that an active assassination market existed, and the
prosecution apparently didn't see fit to mention such evidence to the
press, nor to the judge at sentencing.

But it's misleading to say that the essay was used to "demonstrate"
anything, as it was never introduced into evidence - there was no trial.
Jim plead guilty and was sentenced based upon the arguments of his counsel,
the prosecutor, and the probation department's presentence report. It's
interesting to note that the prosecutor and the defense concurred in
recommending to the judge that Jim receive a sentence at the low end of the
permissible range, while the probation department (which acts as an
"attitude police") urged a sentence of 27 months, at or near the upper end
of the applicable guidelines.

Jim's analysis of AP and its relationship to our legal/political/social
structure was poor, and his behavior juvenile and indefensible. He did not,
however, present a credible threat to the IRS, nor should he be punished
more harshly because of his political views/ideas.

We should not let distaste/disgust for Jim's ideas and tactics blind us to
the important legal and constitutional questions lurking beneath the
surface of this investigation and prosecution - there's some possibility
that the IRS used its investigation of Jim as a threat to other prolific
authors on the Internet.

For example, copies of the press release announcing the raid on Jim's home
were mailed, apparently from computer systems inside the IRS, to
individuals active on the Cypherpunks list. The IRS has never before (or
since) bothered to notify those individuals about criminal investigations
which might otherwise be of interest. One easy conclusion to reach is that
the raid was intended to chill those individuals' expressive activity on
the Net with respect to Jim and his ideas and the interplay between
taxation and anonymity and cryptography.

Further, it's worth considering carefully the relationship between Jim's
legitimate and constitutionally protected political speech and the criminal
trial process. To what extent did Jim's outspokenness about the IRS
influence its interest in investigating and prosecuting him? To what extent
was his protected speech used to argue that he was ineligible for release
on bail pretrial? To what extent did his extended pretrial incarceration
pressure him to plead guilty? (Note that as of his sentencing on 12/12,
he's already served almost 80% of his term of incarceration.) To what
extent did his protected speech influence the probation department to
recommend a sentence two and half times as long as that proposed in the
plea agreement negotiated by the prosecution and defense? To what extent
will his protected speech be used to measure his compliance with the terms
of his supervised release?

Assuming that one considers a stinkbomb "force", it seems beyond dispute
that Jim is in fact guilty of the charges against him - so it's difficult
to argue that he was, in fact, wrongfully convicted. But it's also
difficult to argue that, but for his AP essay(s), he'd never have attracted
the attention nor scrutiny of the IRS, and hence never have been
prosecuted. In effect, he's guilty of violating common sense - he shouldn't
have drawn attention to himself if he wasn't prepared for a certain amount
of scrutiny. But cases like Jim's demonstrate that there's a considerable
gulf between the high-school-civics-class idea that we are all equal before
the law and the practical world of the criminal trial system. Jim was
treated specially at every stage of this process because of what he's
written, and that should make every person who values free political
expression uncomfortable. Jim's case demonstrates that we're moving closer
to a country where one can be prosecuted for thoughtcrime. And that,
indeed, should be of interest to FC list members.


--
Greg Broiles                | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell:
gbroiles@netbox.com         | Export jobs, not crypto.
http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | http://www.parrhesia.com