[no subject]

Next:
    The article says (page 133) that "he had fired practically every court-appointed lawyer ever assigned to him".  Actually, that is absolutely NOT true, although the truth requires some explanation that you didn't bother to ask me.  I could say, accurately, that I "Never"  fired ANY attorney, but again that requires some explanation.  (More precisely, I never SUCCEEDED in firing ANY lawyer:  In every circumstance where I tried to fire an attorney, that attorney was continued to be forced upon me, for weeks, months, or in one case years, and if and when that attorney finally withdrew, it wasn't because _I_ wanted him to leave, it was because he (or she) had finally achieved the damage to me that he (or she) was trying to do, and he (or she) obtained the permission of the judge to withdraw.
    You have a major responsibility here!  To my recollection, you NEVER asked me about me 'firing' any attorney, yet you put this material in your book as if it were true.  You have based your commentary on these false 'facts', and you didn't check with me to see if I had a correction or other explanation.

    Peter Avenia was my first attorney (1997-1999).  I never even tried to fire him.  And, in fact, I tried to get the judge (Burgess) in about April 1999 to REFUSE Avenia's request to withdraw.  Why?  In 1998, I consented to an unnecessary 'mental evaluation' (in Springfield Missouri) based on Avenia's promise that he would investigate my allegations that the government had been spying on me.  In fact, the only basis for the government's request for a 'mental evaluation' was my claim that the government was spying on me!  Please note that the government didn't deny that it had been spying; the prosecutor didn't comment on that.  Can you see why this is a problem?  It turns out that the government was, indeed, spying on me, including during the period of April 1998 and June 1998, after which they arrested me for a 'supervised violation'.  In fact, they had placed a tracking device in at least one of my parents' cars (A Lincoln).

    "What's wrong with that", you might ask?  Well, in 2012 the US Supreme Court ruled (U.S. v. Jones) that such a placement was a "search" under the 4th Amendment.  Indeed, in a 1999 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case (U.S. v. McIver) , that court ruled that it was legal (under certain circumstances inapplicable to me) for 'cops' (term used generically) to place a tracking device on a subject's car.  Problem was, in the McIver there was actually a CRIME being investigated (Marijuana growing) and the subject was directly linked to that crime.  In stark contrast, I was neither suspected or known to have been involved in any crime, then-past, then-present, or then-future.  In other words, these Feds actually just placed the tracking on the car without any legitimate law-enforcement reason.  They did not want, however, to have the fact of their arguably-illegal placement of the tracking devices(s) openly mentioned in any court hearing.  I, quite the
 opposite, DEMANDED to my attorney, Avenia, that he verify the tracking device(s) placement, and argue the matter in court.  He promised to do that, in mid 1998, but he later (April 1999) broke his promise by resigning, and his replacement also refused.  In other words, I was denied an actual defense due to the collusion of two of 'my' attorneys as well as the government.

    One of the major things I wanted to do was to prove that the Feds were employing what should be illegal tactics (such as the GPS tracking device) not for any legitimate reason, but simply because they considered me to be their 'enemy', not because they thought I was going to commit any crime.  I wanted to be able to show that they were "offending" against me, because of (among other things) my allegation that they had employed a jailhouse snitch ("Ryan Thomas Lund") to attack me, which he did on November 25, 1997.  (See version 1.06 of my Portland Oregon Federal Court lawsuit, 02-1052, version filed in July of 2003.

  Avenia agreed to have an investigator do that.  I went to that (useless) evaluation, but when I returned I continued to insist on the investigation that Avenia had promised.  Indeed, he eventually did send an investigator ("Sharon Callas") to do an investigation, in Vancouver Washington.  Mysteriously, she resigned very shortly after doing that investigation, and I was never given the results.
    Avenia was allowed (by the Judge, Burgess, now dead) to resign in about April 1999.  I objected at a court hearing, because I had gotten Avenia to PROMISE to do an investigation, and I was afraid (correctly, as it turns out) that any replacement of him would fail or refuse to bring out the issues concerning the government's crimes and misdeeds against me.
    More tomorrow.
              Jim Bell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20140110/70163b57/attachment.html>