Jim Bell Gets 10 Years for Writing Essay

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 his conduct. London stated that the real cause of Bell\'s initial prosecution was \"Operation Locate IRS\"