-Caveat Lector-
Source: http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/aug/26/arex082601.htm
Jim Bell Sentenced To Ten Years In Prison and Lifelong Poverty
SierraTimes Exclusive 08.26.01
Hi. We're from the Government.
We're here to help.
Photo from LewisNews.com
On Friday August 24 Jim Bell, author of Assassination Politics was
sentenced to 10 years in prison on one count of interstate stalking of a
federal agent and one count of "using facilities of interstate commerce
(i.e., a fax machine) for interstate stalking" by Federal Ninth District
Judge Jack E. Tanner.
During his trial, Bell had argued that he was using widely available means
to investigate the backgrounds of IRS and ATF agents. Judge Tanner was not
persuaded; he sentenced Bell to the maximum possible time allowable under
US Code 18:2261.
After a flurry of motions to dismiss the case for reasons varying from
judicial prejudice to fraud by the court were denied, Bell's attorney
Robert Leen addressed the pre-sentencing report. A normal practice in
federal trials and many state criminal trials, the pre-sentencing report
recommends a sentence depending on a number of factors. A defendant is
assigned a "level" based on the crime and this level is adjusted upward if
other factors are present. Leen argued that the factors that were applied
were inappropriate or not present.
Two of the factors might be of specific interest to Sierra Times readers.
Using internet search engines to find the addresses of federal agents was
considered a "special skill" which the majority of people don't reasonably
possess. Although Leen pointed out that even his five-year-old could access
a search engine and this was hardly demonstrative of a special skill, this
argument was lost on the judge who had previously demonstrated an almost
total lack of knowledge in the area during the trial.
The other factor was that Bell showed no remorse over authoring
Assassination Politics. Several times both the prosecutor and judge
mentioned, in a style redolent of Soviet courts, that Bell hadn't"
recanted" his essay, and therefore needed to be imprisoned "for the safety
of the public."
Leen argued that Bell's actions were far from the equivalent of the type of
crimes that merit sentences of five years, such as "selling five kilos of
cocaine." Tanner didn't buy that. He said that he did not see Assassination
Politics as protected speech, and that it was equivalent to "yelling fire
in a crowded theater."
Leen pointed out that the stalking went both ways; and that the statute
under which Bell had been tried was not designed for someone trying to
expose government conspiracy. Leen added that Bell had committed no
terrible act, and that the prosecution was clearly practicing prior
constraint. (The judge would essentially confirm this during his statement
immediately before sentencing.) Leen insisted that his client was "just
mouthing off," but that this was not cause for imposing 120 months of
imprisonment.
Leen also pointed out that agents are paid to tolerate some level of abuse
because of their jobs, but Tanner countered with questions about whether
they had to put up with abuse outside of their official duties, and whether
they should be exposing their families to more risk simply because they
choose to work for the government. (This goes against Tanner's stand in the
trial that agents deserved special protection over and above what ordinary
citizens should be accorded.)
Jim Bell was given an opportunity to address the court. In a wavering voice
that became more firm as he spoke, Bell claimed that he was merely
researching the stalking against himself, which he believed to be illegal
and improper surveillance. He said that he was doing "what a private
investigator or a police officer is hired to do" and that "our society has
forgotten that we have a right to do this."
Bell highlighted the mutual dislike that so palpably exists between him and
the judge, stating that the judge was retaliating because of a competency
complaint that Bell filed against Tanner with the state bar. (Bell has kept
up a barrage of filings since his April trial; in July he filed suit
against Tanner and a number of other people, charging that they conspired
to deny him a fair trial in April.)
Bell argued that the sentencing level should be reduced because he did
"accept responsibility" for the crime of stalking, an argument that
prosecutor London later claimed was false because Bell hadn't recanted his
essay. (Thus London indicated that much of the real crime was refusing to
publicly recant political speech.) Bell also claimed that he shouldn't be
sentenced on the stalking charges anyway, since he never made physical
contact with IRS agent Jeff Gordon.
Prosecutor Robb London took his opportunity to address the court. Saying
that Bell's actions deserved a "severe amount of time," London disagreed
with Bell's characterization of
