[an email sent elsewhere]
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.
Jim Bell,
[something I wrote about a week ago]
A few years back, probably 2011 (while I was still in prison) 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/fa ct-tank/2017/03/28/federal-cri
minal-prosecutions-fall-to-low est-level-in-nearly-two-decade s/ .
According to https://www.ussc.gov/sites/d efault/files/pdf/research-and-
publications/research-publicat ions/2017/FY16_Overview_
Federal_Criminal_Cases.pdf , "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?
Jim Bell
