[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Jacob Appelbaum in Germany

From: coderman <[email protected]>
To: Jim Bell <[email protected]> 
Cc: Joe Wang <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> 
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 3:08 AM
Subject: Re: Jacob Appelbaum in Germany

>On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Jim Bell <[email protected]> wrote:
>> (Also, I am virtually assuming that everything on my computer can be, and
>> probably is, being read by a few dozen spy organizations of
>> technically-competent nations.  I use ordinary anti-virus programs, but I'm
>> under no illusion that the NSA/CIA/GCHQ/TLA's of other nations can't devise
>> a targeted bug that such software cannot find.)     If any of you are
>> interested in helping me confirm or deny this paranoid suspicion, I would
> >very much appreciate your assistance.)

>so far we've seen 0.5%[0] of confirmations of general and nearly
>insurmountable vulnerability against a state level actor, ... let's
>see what 2014 has in store! :)
>the question:
>do you believe the counter-surveillance was a factor in the extreme
>measures used in your prosecution?
>AP seemed the most controversial and outwardly demonised aspect of the
>whole debacle, but perhaps i am giving too much weight to AP.

    I think my 'counter-surveillance' was a factor, but not in the way most (relatively uninformed) people might think.  You see, upon my release in April 2000, I strongly suspected that the Feds had been engaging in corruption and illegal actions against me (Google 'Ryan Thomas Lund'; also, it's in the July 2003 re-filing of my lawsuit 'Revision 1.06'   http://cryptome.org/jdb-v-usa-106.htm     ) and I publicly announced that I would be investigating the facts and would eventually file a lawsuit. Primarily, during the summer of 2000, I visited the last-registered-addresses of vehicles that had been used on Father's Day Sunday 1998 to surveill me when I drove to a relative's house to attend her birthday party.  I suspected that those vehicles had been acquired by the Feds, and that they WOULDN'T be found at their last registered address.  (I had the Oregon DMV database on CDROM).  Turns out, I was absolutely correct.   (see, for example, 
 http://reason.com/archives/2001/12/01/counter-surveillance   )
    What I DIDN'T know (in April 2000) was that since June 1999, the Feds had been faking an appeal in the 9th Circuit court of appeals (case 99-30210).  Quite literally, the appeal was initiated, and from the record it would have appeared that I was trying to handle the appeal myself.  But nobody told me about that appeal, and in fact at least a couple dozen pieces of legal mail that should have come to me at (first) Seatac FDC jail, and subsequently Phoenix FCI prison, were stolen (never delivered) by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) staff.  Further, I knew nothing of the law at that time.   (Note:  This version of the lawsuit was finalized under trying circumstances just days after I had first read the docket for appeal case 99-30210, so I couldn't write in detail about that fake appeal.  Subsequent amendments (around September 2004, as I recall) were far more detailed in my accusations.)
  The number of Federal felonies that were committed against me must have been immense.  Why they initiated, and kept secret, this fake appeal case, I still do not know.  But _THEY_ KNEW what they had done.  And, in about April 2000, I wrote a letter to the Ninth Circuit (still entirely unaware of case 99-30210) asking for an appeal in the underlying probation-revocation case.  (97-5270).  (I had been told by a 'jailhouse lawyer' in about January 2000 that I had a right to an appeal of that case).  At the time, I didn't know that to get an appeal, I'd have had to ask for an appeal (send in a "Notice of Appeal" document) within 10 working days of the 'entry of judgment' on the case.  I hadn't done that, and by the rules they would have been able to refuse me that appeal.  EXCEPT that there was ALREADY an appeal going, 99-30210!   And my request for an appeal, coupled with my public statements that I suspected corruption, probably put a world of
 fear into those who had been committing those crimes against me.  They knew I was on their track, and they presumably were afraid that I would discover what they had done.
    What I think was done was this:  They assigned a corrupt lawyer, ostensibly to represent me, "Jonathan Solovy", after having RE-forged the docket for appeal 99-30210 (probably in May 2000).  Solovy's job, as I later derived, was to APPEAR to write and file that appeal.  He did, and he lost.  But he didn't send me a copy of the docket for that case.  Had he done so, or had he asked me one of one hundred questions ("I see you've been working on this appeal for 10 months!  What are your appeal issues...?) I would have been instantly alerted that I hadn't initiated that appeal in April 2000, as I thought I had.  Solovy's job was to conceal from me the corrupt nature of the events around appeal 99-30210, and he did so.  I found out the true nature of fake appeal 99-30210 about June 20, 2003, after I received a copy of the docket for that case from the clerks' office of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

>the judge sealing the entire court file raises questions, but i also
>admit knowing little about the particulars of the facts and legal
>motions of the case.

The corrupt lawyer, Robert Leen, was assigned to me about November 21, 2000.  I learned early that he didn't intend to actually defend me.  I sent a letter to the (corrupt) judge Tanner about December 8, 2000, telling him that I had 'fired' Leen.  Tanner's response was to refuse to let me fire Leen.  At that point, I realized that I would be fighting not merely the prosecution, but also 'my' attorney and the judge.  I began learning the law, and put a lot of effort into self-written motions and objections.  I even filed a 'Notice of Interlocutory Appeal' in late March 2001, just before my 'trial', which divested jurisdiction from that court to proceed.  Naturally, they simply ignored this, Leen, prosecutor Robb London (who currently works as the Communications Director at Harvard Law School), and judge Tanner.    Much of this is described in my lawsuit.   http://cryptome.org/jdb-v-usa-106.htm
Like I said, the level of corruption used against me was immense.
         Jim bell

0.  snowden leaks, ~1.6% to ~.40% released
   see also, tailored access megapwnage:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20131231/46877771/attachment.html>