From: Human Gus-Peter <hg-p@dev.null>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 00:07:38 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Jim Bell Revisited
Message-ID: <199712141555.HAA15012@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>Gag Broiled wrote:
>>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. 

  Half-Baked knows that, but with his bowling-mentality, he thinks
he has a better chance of throwing a strike if he puts a little spin
on his balls, while twisting Jim's.

>>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.)

  Was that FELONY 'Making a bad smell'? I farted in an IRS office once
(on purpose). Am I a Jim Bell co-conspirator? 
  Are my armpits considered a felony or a misdemeanor?

  The government misuses my Social Security Number to steal my money.
Where do I press charges? Can I place airline employees under citizen's
arrest when they demand it?

>>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.

  Winter winds blow both ways.

>>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.

  The government's armed assault on Ma and Pa Bell's residence took place
within hours of an email being sent to him containing a rough draft of
a chapter of an InterNet published manuscript describing and lauding
Bell's AP system.

>>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. 

  It is interesting to note that the emails from treasury.gov constituted
the same type of 'threat' that Bell was roundly accused of by government
officials and the press.

>>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.

  The winter wind blows both ways.
  It is also easy to reach the conclusion that the AP-BOT results sent to
the Oregonian and to the officials involved (via their internal email
systems) played a hand in the judges 'vacation' before Bell's delayed
sentencing. (Or that petty government officials involved in Bell's case
were not impressed with the fact that they were becoming the source of
valuable digital prizes in the AP-BOT community, without receiving the
same protection as those who were behind the criminal malefeasance
directed at Bell.)

>>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? 

  Bell's persecution was straight out of the spook's political torture-
indoctrination handbook. The only difference is that many aspects of the
turning of Bell's thumbscrews were made public (just before tax-time,
surprise, surprise).

>>To what extent
>>will his protected speech be used to measure his compliance with the terms
>>of his supervised release?

  That was half of the purpose of his persecution. "We the people" were the
other half of the sacrificial lamb targeted for cold-storage.

>>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.

  The corollary to this is that we are moving closer to a country where
we will need to take up arms in both meatspace and cyberspace if we wish
to defend our basic human rights.
(Former NRA members are unlikely to take any more consolation from the
 government's expressed desire to only want to ban 'strong' crypto, than
 they were from the government's incremental announcements that they only
 want to ban criminal/assault/dangerous-looking/kind-of-scary/citizen's
 guns.)

  Rage Against The Machine
  Lock And Load
  Lock And Loll

Human Gus-Peter-San <gold@toad.com>