[I am resending this, because while I received a confirmation from the CP list
a few seconds after I sent it, nevertheless after nearly 40 minutes after this,
I have not yet received the posting as would have been sent by the list.]
On Thursday, January 9, 2020, 12:40:40 PM PST, jim bell
<[email protected]> wrote:
My Assassination Politics https://cryptome.org/ap.htm proposal has been
extensively mistreated and unfairly opposed by people, even early on the
Cypherpunks list, based on very false and especially incomplete analyses.
Specifically, people write as if you can consider AP 'good' based only on it,
rather than in comparison with what it will certainly replace. And yes, many
people have had the opportunity, for about 25 years now, to do these
comparisons. They have utterly failed to do that. Economists have a term
called "opportunity cost", the costs of NOT choosing a particular course of
action. Making a decision requires an analysis of not merely choosing, but
also choosing NOT, to do something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
I just read the following, from Reddit. It is a seemingly small, but virtually
perfect, example of what happens when you DON'T choose to implement my
Assassination Politics system.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/em8clw/brooklyn_public_defender_scott_hechinger_lays_out/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
I will quote all of this below, the relevant message, in case it disappears.
But I will say that in an AP world this kind of event could not occur. Why do
I say that? In an AP world, this crooked detective wouldn't expect to be
protected by an equally-crooked judge. In an AP world, this crooked detective
would be 'donated to death', very quickly, and there would be nothing at all
that anybody could do to stop this. And if a crooked judge tried to help him
get away with this amazing perjury, that judge too would be 'donated to death',
just as quickly. And anyone who supported him, or them. Mostly, the deterrent
value of AP would make such actions unthinkable, and impossible in practice.
One reason that my AP idea should be considered so good is that it must be
judged in comparison with the existing world, all the bad things like this.
Anybody who criticizes AP needs to explain why it would somehow be worse than
today's amazing world.
When I do a Google-search for things like ' "Assassination Politics" "bell" '
I occasionally read comments about how 'Bell has not recanted', or 'Bell still
believes in his AP idea'. As if, they are somehow shocked to discover that I
really still support my AP idea. Why should I recant? Why should I abandon
my discovery/invention? Does our world still have injustice, in the way this
current Reddit item describes? Does our world still have militaries, taxation
to fund them, wars, and nuclear weapons? Does anybody (else) have a credible
idea to solve these problems?
I will recant AP when, and only when, the world figures out a way to solve ALL
of its problems that AP would otherwise solve. Which will NEVER occur.
Jim Bell
----------------------------- From that cite shown above:
-----------------------------
"I represented the man who this ex-NYPD detective lied into a violent felony
indictment. Michael Bergman completely fabricated a fake crime out of spite. If
convicted, would’ve faced minimum 3.5 years in prison. Max 15. Today, the liar
only got probation.
"I remember first meeting Mr. Barbosa. In interview cells attached to the cage
behind the arraignment courtroom in Brooklyn criminal court. Like everyone I
represent I don’t get to choose. I just happened to be working that day, & a
file with his name & charges was handed to me.
"The charges were serious. Detective Bergman claimed that after stopping Mr.
Barbosa’s car, he accelerated backwards at a high rate of speed, then turned
the car toward the Detective. Was right in between headlines. And slammed on
gas. Bergman dove out of the way to save his life.
"Mr. Barbosa was in a world of trouble. Charged w/ attempted assault in first
degree. A Class C violent felony. A brazen act of violence. I wondered what he
was thinking. What motivated this? I walked thru the door into the jail
directly behind the “In God We Trust” sign in court.
I called his name & he walked in. Tired. Not feeling well. Shaking his head. I
told him his charges. And he forcefully denied it. “Didn’t happen. These cops
have been harassing me for months. I was parked. They pulled up. I drove off.
That was it.” I pressed him more.
“Why on earth would they make something like this up?” I asked. Cops lie all
the time. To justify bad stops & frisks, excessive use of force. Sometimes they
plant evidence. Big lies. Small lies. Here: there was no motivation. He wasn’t
injured. They didn’t find anything on him.
“I honesty don’t know. They don’t like me, but saying I did this?” He trailed
off. Put head down. He was really upset. I was having a hard time still
believing him. “So you just pulled out? Didn’t accidentally almost hit him?” He
shook his head no. “I’ll look for video,” I said.
A reaction to the idea of video surveillance can sometimes be a tell. If not so
enthusiastic, it’s likely the video won’t be helpful. But he jumped up:
“There’s video?!”
“I don’t know. I’ll definitely be looking for it.”
“Please, please do. Otherwise it’s my word vs. his.”
Mr. Barbosa knew the reality then: Police can generally say whatever they want.
And they know that generally, no matter what, prosecutors, judges, & in the
rare case that makes it that far, juries, will believe them over the accused.
He was in a serious predicament. Life & death.
Based on this allegation, Mr. Barbosa was remanded to Rikers Island by parole.
While he sat on Rikers, Det. Bergman made the decision to take his lie a step
further. He could’ve stopped w/ the lie in paperwork. Just let it go. Instead
he decided to testify before the grand jury.
Under oath, he told the grand jury a story out of an action movie. How he had
to leap out of the way to save his life. How he scratched his arm on the
pavement. How he thought he was going to die. The grand jury believed him &
voted to indict Barbosa. Thankfully, there was video.
I happen to be blessed to work in a public defender office w/ more resources
than most. We have a team of investigators, who spend all day everyday in the
field. Witness interviews. Taking measurements. Visiting crime scenes. Tracking
down video surveillance. They’re incredible.
Just to stress the point. Most defender offices in the country don’t have any
investigators. A large number of offices don’t have funding to meet their
clients at first appearances but have to wait days, sometimes weeks. By then
video taped over. Evidence gone. Memories faded.
Just to stress the point about lack of access to counsel further: There are
large swaths of the country that don’t even have defender offices at all.
Judges appoint private attorneys, who get paid relative pennies for it, let
alone enough to encourage them to investigate. A sham.
Ok. Back to the nightmare that now-ex NYPD Detective Michael Bergman
maliciously inflicted on my client, Pedro Barbosa. And the video that saved his
life.
I remember when Julia knocked on my door. “I got video surveillance in the
Barbosa case. They lied. It’s clear.” She talked the owner of a car mechanic
shop to let her copy it. She handed me a DVD. Popped it into my computer &
watched. “Holy sh*t!” “I know, right!?” she said.
Here is the video the investigator Julia found that exposed Det. Bergman’s lie.
Mr. Barbosa parallel parks. Unmarked car pulls up. He drives off. No
accelerating back. No aiming car at Bergman (driver’s side). No diving out of
way. A complete fabrication.
Here is another version of the video that exposed ex-NYPD detective Michael
Bergman’s perjury.
@nowthisnews published it with a play by play rundown.
Armed with the video, I filed a motion to dismiss the charges comparing
Bergman’s testimony with what actually happened (with time stamps) & submitted
the motion along with a copy of the video surveillance. I got a call from the
prosecutor less than a day later. He was stunned.
“I watched the video. Um.” He had a hard time finding words. “Well. We’re
obviously going to dismiss.” I was so relieved. I’m so used to prosecutors
giving cops every imaginable benefit of the doubt, I thought there was a chance
they’d find a way to see something I couldn’t.
Then prosecutor asks me: “Why do you think he did this?” I told him I had no
idea. But reminded him that police lie all the time. This one happened to be
obvious bc it was on video. But cops lying unfortunately is an epidemic in
forces around the country. I felt like a teacher.
The prosecutor also told me that the Brooklyn DA’s new “Police Accountability
Unit” would be considering prosecuting. I said that was fine, but more
pressing: his office should be investigating every case the detective ever
worked on. “That’s out of my control, but I agree.”
I’ve never seen anyone smile more broadly than when I told Mr. Barbosa we found
video, it totally exonerated him, & the prosecution was dismissing. He
literally bounced. “I told you!” “I know.” “What happens now?” I soon found
out. From the Daily News:
Det. Bergman, accused of lying under oath to imprison an innocent man for up to
15 years, was released w/o bail. No outcry of course from @nypost, police &
prosecutors who, as I type, are peddling their own lies to kill new bail
reforms so they can jail more Black & Brown people.
I later found out, this time from @nypost, that Bergman had pled guilty. The
Post of course didn’t disparage Bergman as a “criminal,” “thug,” “goon,”
“felon,” or “con” like they do Black people charged w/ far less. But they did
call Mr. Barbosa “the perp.”
Bergman was fired. A near impossibility. Prosecutors asked the judge to
sentence him to a year in jail. Brooklyn DA made this statement: “The justice
system must be able to rely on the integrity & credibility of our police to
keep our communities safe & ensure equal justice.”
Today I heard the news. The Judge took the rare step—at least in cases of
people I represent—of undercutting the prosecution request for jail time &
sentencing Michael Bergman to probation. As far as I know, this judge only
sentences cops to probation. No matter what. Examples —>
The same judge also sentenced the 2 NYPD officers who had sex w/ a teen in
exchange for her freedom to probation. Pointed out that cop's conduct was
mitigated bc the teenager also committed a crime by allegedly offering sex for
her freedom.
The same judge gave probation to this ex-NYPD cop who shot a man in the mouth
twice out of jealousy & then placed a knife next to his body to cover up his
crime.
Akai Gurley (left) was killed by Officer Laing while walking in the stairwell
of a building. Laing received probation.
2 months later, same judge sentenced Marcell Dockery (right), a teen who set
fire to a mattress accidentally killing a responding officer, to 19 years to
life.
Michael Bergman did one of the worst things a human being could ever do to
another: give false testimony that would put them in jail wrongfully. He did so
brazenly and maliciously. He lied in sworn testimony before a grand jury.
If investigators in my office had not found video that proved his lie, Mr.
Barbosa faced a mandatory minimum of 3.5 years and a maximum of 15 years in
prison. Police lying is an epidemic not just in the NYPD, but in police forces
around the country.
Police lie because they know they’ll rarely if ever be held to account. It is a
good thing Bergman was fired and prosecuted. But probation? I just hope that
this punishment sends the necessary message of zero tolerance to all on the
force. I fear it won’t.
-Scott Hechinger[end of long quote from Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/em8clw/brooklyn_public_defender_scott_hechinger_lays_out/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
]
