Informants Amongst Us?
Outpost of freedom
May 8, 1995
The testimony in the Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial made clear that Randy had been induced into a crime with the intention of getting Randy to become an informant for the government. While I was up in Idaho, I spoke with some people that suggested that nearly half of Richard Butler’s Aryan Nation Church were informants. Others have suggested that when the old Posse Comitatus broke up, that most of their members had become informants. Accusations have abounded these past few years as to who is a government agent or informant. It was painfully clear that the government has means, other than agents, to accomplish infiltration, entrapment, and promulgation of misinformation throughout the Patriot community. The question is, how can they achieve this goal? I’ve been looking for an answer to that question for years, now. Finally, thanks to the government’s efforts to accomplish that very goal with a true patriot, and friend, I’ve found the answer.
I have, in front of me, a Plea Agreement for that friend. The deadline has passed, and he is scheduled before a federal Grand Jury later this month. The Agreement is about as contemptuous a document as I have ever read. I will get into the details, but, first, some background. Although the friend was arrested, and held for a few days, until released on his own recognizance, there have yet to be any charges filed against him. There were charges in the arrest affidavit, however they had not been filed with the court, and we can find no record that there EVER were any charges filed. After a while, the United States Attorney submitted the Plea Agreement, and followed with a letter threatening to withdraw the Agreement if it was not accepted by a certain date. That date has come and gone, and I am free to release the information, except the name of the patriot involved. This particular Agreement refers to an IRS code violation, but, keep in mind, agreements could be submitted for nearly any charge.
The Agreement, first, sets out the charge that will be sought. In this case, a violation of 26 USC 1212(a). The maximum penalties (3 years in prison and $250,000 fine) are set out. Then, a waiver of indictment gave up that Constitutionally protected right. Then comes the USG’s agreement to not go after the Defendants wife or company, but only if the Agreement is accepted. If no adverse information is received, the USG will not oppose the Defendant’s request for a “two level downward” adjustment from maximum sentencing guidelines. Whether the Court accepts the Agreement, or not, the Defendant, once he signs the Agreement, is bound to its conditions. If accepted, the Defendant agrees to cooperate and testify against “other persons“. The USG will decide if the cooperation and/or testimony qualifies as “substantial assistance”. If that “substantial assistance” is deemed worthy by the USG, prior to sentencing, the USG will, recommend the two level downward adjustment. “[T]he determination as to whether ‘substantial assistance’ has been provided rests solely with the government, and the defendant agrees that defendant cannot and will not challenge that decision whether by appeal, collateral attack or otherwise.”
As the Agreement continues, speedy trial is waived, as are any other rights allegedly protected by the government/Constitution. The bottom line — anybody who accepts such a plea agreement has become an informant, perhaps for the rest of his life. Leaving the determination of “substantial assistance” on the USG leaves a means for the government to induce unethical, immoral, and illegal behavior of the defendant. In order to satisfy the requirements, it would be easy for the government to suggest that more information (falsified, or not) needed to be provided to satisfy the provision. Perhaps disseminating information that was meant to discredit someone, mislead people or just generally create confusion and disorder would satisfy the government’s requirement for “substantial assistance”. It might even be possible for someone to entrap his friends, once the leverage was created by the Agreement.
Why would anyone agree to such an Agreement? Let’s think about it. First, to protect your spouse and family, there is a certain amount of pressure to agree. If you own a business, or any property (asset forfeiture), fear of its loss may be added to the influence. Finally, any bar attorney would probably seek a minimum retainer of $25,000 to defend a case such as this.
Just try to imagine yourself in such a situation. Idealistically, we can all say, “No, I wouldn’t sign it.” Nevertheless, realistically, the stakes are very, very high, and it probably would not be difficult to succumb. How many people that we know may have succumbed, already?
When you think of the power the government exerts over an individual with an Agreement of this nature, visions come to mind of “involuntary servitude”. As harmless, as first glance (and your attorney’s encouragement) might make it appear to be, it is a concept that is so evil on its face that it deserves to be equated with Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung — not with America.
Is there anything that we can do to help someone caught in this evil web? Only if they are willing to come clean, and seek help from their fellow patriots. If we are to shake off this “secret police” tactic, we must be willing to stand by any who come out and admit to falling into a Plea Agreement trap. Whatever assistance (substantial???) they may need to avoid prosecution is warranted. When we consider the severity of events currently engulfing us, it might be worth considering ANY support necessary to remove the chains from those who have submitted. There are two reasons for this necessity. First, we need every good man that is available, and cannot hold such acts against him, if he is willing to come clean. Second, and more important by far, is the fact that we need to rid ourselves of the stigma that is associated with the control asserted by government through these contemptible means.
A final thought, is much of the information that seems to permeate our communications, and subsequently proven inaccurate, an indication of the existence of these problems? Look at information sources, and their past records of reliability with open and thorough consideration. The reliability of information is more important now than ever before. If someone’s record is blemished with information that has proven to be inaccurate, or predictions that have been proven untrue, perhaps a very cautious regard should be applied to information from those same sources in the future.