From: juan On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 18:51:39 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

...

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....

    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  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/28/federal-criminal-prosecution...  .   According to   https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/resea...  , "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? =================================

 

From: juan On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 19:38:09 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

  From: juan     On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 18:51:39 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

...

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?)           We should suppose otherwise because if they really wanted a     solution they would be doing something meaningful by now. 

I cannot say if they are doing something meaningful.   What I do believe is that whatever they are doing, it is not effective.

    But you are free to make any proposition to them I guess. Their     answer might be entertaining. If they bother to return your     call.

That's a good question.  Seeking a solution and actually WANTING a solution are two different things.  A few weeks ago, an organization was given the Nobel Peace Prize for opposing nuclear weapons.  I suspect, however, that nothing they have ever done have resulted in the dismantling of even one such bomb.   Whereas, I've proposed a system (AP) which claims that it can force all owners of nuclear weapons to dismantle them.  Do you think they will want to talk to me?

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?

    So in the land of Free, if you cross a red light, the government     will accuse you of 'money laundering', 'drug trafficking',     'sexism', 'mass murder' and some other things. You can confess     and renounce your 'right' to a 'fair trial' or you can     be charged with 100 more fake charges. I'm not seeing how $3000     per govt victim will fix that.

Then you didn't pay attention to what I proposed.  The current system "works" (does what those controlling it want) because it can threaten all non-cooperators with a large amount of extra punishment if they don't cooperate.  But if we give everybody a good reason to not cooperate, and inform each of them that everyone else has the same motivation, "everybody" will refuse.  And so, 95% of them will have to be set free.  Everybody will understand this.    Moreover, this "hack" as you call it will generate its own publicity.  If "they" resist, "we" can use that against the ones who operate the system. 

    The system is completely corrupt by design. And has been     polished for hundreds of years. Good luck 'hacking' it.

You first need to understand the 'hack' I propose.                            Jim Bell