Re: Fw: Jim Bell Sentenced (fwd)

[Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>]

At 08:01 PM 12/14/97 -0500, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 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.)
>
>Actually I was entirely correct. He had already executed a
>non-lethal attack and there was considerable evidence to
>suggest he was planning something more lethal in future.

I think your term "non-lethal attack" is poorly chosen - there are any
number of behaviors which can be characterized as such. Lots of people do
lots of non-lethal things every day. (In fact, some might express a
preference in favor of the non-lethal attacks.)

It's also easy to interpret the data we've got as suggesting that Jim liked
to talk big and take small actions - he certainly had the tools and the
information required to carry out a "lethal attack" were he inclined to do
so. But he didn't.

>>>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
>
>Read the essay, he quite clearly states his reason for wanting 
>to see IRS agents murdered.

It might have been interesting evidence, had Jim been charged with the
murder of an IRS agent. Perhaps you can point to one of his essays in which
he discusses the use of stinkbombs? 

Even so, I think there's a strong possibility that the essay(s) would have
been inadmissible, had there been a trial. And the interesting question
with respect to the essays is not whether or not they demonstrated an
antipathy towards the IRS, but whether or not they can be legitimately
considered by any of the judicial/administrative bodies charged with
deciding Jim's fate. 
  
>>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.
>
>He plead guilty, to lesser charges. That does not mean he gets
>the benefit of the doubt.

He did not plead to "lesser charges", he plead guilty to both charges which
were brought against him.

And there's no "doubt" here at all - the government charged him with the
crimes they thought they could prove against him at trial, Jim and his
attorney agreed with that assessment, and was sentenced. Handwaving about
evidence which wasn't introduced to show "motive" for crimes he wasn't
charged with isn't helpful.

>He was clearly a loon and quite probably would have killed 
>someone sooner or later. 

Does that matter? Do you think that we can/should restrict the freedom of
the many, many harmless loons because of the much smaller percentage of
loons who go on to do awful things? And who decides who's a loon? I'm sure
that both you and I fit some people's definitions of loons. Will we lose
our rights, to speak, to own firearms, etc? 

--
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