Federal Prison Time Consulting LLC owner Dan Wise is also a federal prison rat. I found this out recently after he did an about face which got me wondering if he might be a rat because it seemed like something a rat might do. I looked into his background and discovered that he was an informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Then I found out he publicly disparaged someone who'd consulted with him in the past. He also admitted in a video to being a snitch per his own definition of the word. Despite all that there are still many defendants who'd likely consider themselves compatible with RDAP Dan. REVENGE PORN DUDE INTERVIEW RDAP Dan got a lot of heat online for granting Hunter Moore his first interview after Netflix released a documentary film about him last month called The Most Hated Man on the Internet. Moore became semi-famous in 2012 because he ran a website which allowed people to submit nude photographs of others without their consent. Moore got greedy when he paid a hacker to break into women's accounts and steal their nude photographs. Moore eventually went to prison for hacking. On the RDAP Dan Podcast, Moore said his only regret was not going "10 times harder." RDAP Dan was quickly criticized far and wide for giving Moore a platform. It didn't take long for Dan to put out a video apologizing and promising to donate the proceeds to charity. To add insult to injury, Dan chose the charity recommended by Moore's archnemesis Charlotte Laws. Dan also acted as if he had no idea Moore intentionally paid Charles Evens to hack over 40 women. I didn't buy Dan's explanation. As somebody in the gripe site industry which has at times had some historical overlaps with the revenge porn industry, I paid close attention when Moore was targeted by Anderson Cooper the same way I was the same year. The format of the episodes were strikingly similar (probably both produced by a blonde named Anita), but instead of confronting me over nudes I was confronted by women claiming to have been falsely accused of having sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Unlike Moore, I've never prescreened content so I couldn't be accurately accused of posting the information myself or approving it. I also allow authors to remove their own work which I feel shifts the responsibility to them. I don't host porn unless I don't know about it because when I see it I take it down. I recall seeing stuff about Moore's case on TV when I was in USP Victorville and made a mental note of it. Moore's role in the hacking was obvious back then (ex: https://ift.tt/bOIA0oB). RDAP Dan claims he'd only seen the plea agreement and a handful of other documents before interviewing Moore. If that is true then the factual basis section of the plea agreement clearly describes Moore's culpability and should have been more than enough to put Dan on notice (https://ift.tt/w823QVo). It doesn't say how many women were hacked, so Dan might not have known exactly how many there were (I didn't either until seeing the film), but I don't think that gives him grounds to say he didn't know what Moore did. Hypothetical Scenario: If you check someone's paperwork and see a single count of conspiracy to distribute child pornography, you don't need to know how many victims there were to know the guy's a weirdo. While Moore was not charged with any sex crimes, that is besides the point. The point is that RDAP Dan had adequate access to all the information he needed for me to feel comfortable saying the he knew or should have known Moore's role in the hacking. On top of that, Dan claims to have not watched The Most Hated Man on the Internet until after people blasted him for giving Moore a platform. For all I know he is telling the truth and he didn't bother to watch the film before getting an exclusive from the star of the film, but he should've. I would have far more respect for Dan had he simply explained that his podcast is about prison, part of that involves interviewing people who've gone to prison, and it is important for someone to give defendants a chance to be heard. I've always believed that those using the injustice system against others deserve to be subjected to the same amount of public scrutiny and ridicule as those they're using it against because supporting the system is usually a far more evil deed than whatever crime someone's accused of. DEA INFORMANT Thinking flipping on a guest like that might be something a snitch would do, I checked RDAP Dan's paperwork at PACER.gov. Wasn't really hard because all I had to do to figure out his full name was type Daniel Wise into BOP.gov and look for the one whose release date was at about the right time. Then I did a Google search for United States vs. Daniel John Wise which led me to a partial copy of his docket sheet (https://ift.tt/1RZXipB). Document 8 is his snitch card. Its a motion for a downward departure filed by Assistant United States Attorney Karl Irving Knoche asking that Wise receive a reduced sentence for "his substantial assistance to the government in the investigation and prosecution of other persons." A copy of the motion is being uploaded as a PDF with this article. The motion was made under U.S.S.G. 5K1.1 which basically allows the government to let those that help them walk away from just about anything with a slap on the wrist. Wise has admitted snitching on his podcast in the past. This discovery really burst my bubble because I thought I was about to expose him, but it turns out Dan exposed himself long ago in the video below. He seems to downplay his history quite a bit, probably because he knows that people are less likely to hire a prison rat as a prison consultant. In the description on YouTube included in the image above, Dan posted his definition of what a snitch card is, "a 5K1 is also know as the "SNITCH CARD"." 5K1 is a reference to downward departures under U.S.S.G. 5K1.1 which Dan admits to receiving in the video. At times he goes into great detail explaining why people might want to snitch almost as if he's explaining why he snitched, "you're saying what you got to say to get your ass out of hot water" and explains the meaning of the word "proffer" as used in his paperwork, "you're telling on people, that's the whole point of a proffer." At about 10:55 he admits "I had a 5k1" but claims he didn't know what it meant at the time. Sounds like he could have used a federal prison consultant. However, just about everybody that tells in their first case says that. Often such people are allowed pre-trial release and offered a slap on the wrist if they help put someone else away for a long time. In Wise's case, he helped put away his former boss by testifying at his trial. Dr. Najam Azmat was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 11 years just for drugs (https://ift.tt/BMWn3hU). I met a lot of people doing more than 10 years on drug conspiracy cases and can't think of a single one who deserved it. Even if Dan didn't know what a 5K1 was at first he should have known by the time he entered RDAP in prison. He certainly knew by the time he recorded the video in 2017 in which he encouraged RDAP participants to snitch because its "required." Hasn't he heard of obituaries full of dead people to tell on? To his credit, Dan does a really good job warning people about the dangers of going to prison as a snitch. You can tell he is speaking from experience. He describes the dangers at medium and high security facilities with shocking accuracy for someone whose only been to a low. His program could benefit from the input of people that have been to mediums and highs. For instance, not all mediums and highs have politics against snitches. Many have politics, but they are not as bad as he fears. My first prison was FCI Sheridan which in 2013-14 was already known as one of the softest mediums in the country. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) took advantage of that to ship in as many snitches and sex offenders as they could knowing most of them would probably be safe there. Even when I was there the worst things someone like Dan would probably face would be being forced to live with another rat, excluded from the white TV room, not allowed at the good white tables in the chow hall, and at worst checked-in, but probably not beat up. I was only on the compound for a few months, didn't see many people get checked-in, and the ones that did were usually child molesters. RDAP Dan would probably be just fine at FCI Sheridan today. In 2018, I spent some pretrial time in the SHU under an endless string of threat assessments after mailing my recusal request to the judge at his home. I learned that yard is lost. Snitches, sex offenders, and other undesirable groups unable to walk most yards all have their own cars. In prison, the word "car" is often used in reference to organized groups of inmates. Undesirables are usually run-off or worse most places, but if those types get numbers they organize which is the reason for getting rid of them one at a time when they arrive. If Dan ever goes to the USP I was at there is a good chance he will get stabbed. His 5K1 elevates him from being just another snitch to a full blown rat. It is something that would be found out about him automatically without this article because all new guys are investigated. Snitching exists on a wide spectrum ranging from more sympathetic cases of snitch activism (like Charlotte Laws) to full blown rats (like Dan Wise). When someone testifies at a trial against their former partner to save their own skin they're a rat. A rat is someone who squeals to save his own skin. Rats rarely squeal for noble purposes. They usually have to feel threatened by something like prison time or bad publicity. If he were just a snitch he wouldn't have waited until he got caught to finger his boss. Rats can always find noble causes to claim to have been in service of later. JENNA RYAN Whether or not Jenna Ryan is a former client of RDAP Dan depends on who you ask. Dan told me on Twitter: "She never actually hired me. She refused to take accountability and continued making it worse not just for herself but other J6 defendants as well. We denied her as a client." - RDAPDan on Twitter (https://twitter.com/RDAPDan/status/1564240276407078913) That was a surprise because Business Insider claims, "Insider has reviewed email and text correspondence between Ryan and the two consultants to confirm they briefly worked together." However, Insider doesn't say if Dan was ever retained or otherwise paid any money by Ryan. As someone whose used the press to promote businesses over the years, I'm incapable of trusting any mainstream news story because every story I've been involved with has included inaccuracies. Upon further review, it appears that Dan's work with Ryan was most likely limited to consultations. RDAP Dan offers free consultations to perspective clients. Anyone who takes him up on that offer is a client as far as I'm concerned. I've had enough free consultations with lawyers to know that I'm considered a client the second I talk to them. Imagine if a lawyer told the press why he didn't accept someone as a client. That lawyer would be in violation of the law. The fact that RDAP Dan speaks so freely of those he's advised indicates to me that he probably isn't subject to the constraints of the Sixth Amendment. If he were a member of the defense team like a private investigator or a forensic psychologist then the only legal answer he could give the press would be that he doesn't talk to the press about former clients without permission. Not talking about current or former clients without permission should be his policy. Moral high ground can be achieved with silence. Remaining silent in response to a public attack on one's character can itself be a sign of greater character. You might as well be saying it doesn't matter what she says because you're better than that. You have a code of ethics which prevents you from firing back against anyone you've worked with in the past. Just advertising that will make more people want to work with you. WHO SHOULD WORK WITH RDAP DAN? RDAP Dan is compatible with a lot of people. He explained one such reason in the video below. Drug conspiracy cases such as his often include a small number of primary targets that don't have the opportunity to rat and a bunch of lower players given the opportunity to rat. A lot of lower players do what Dan did. If you want to be a rat call RDAP Dan. If you're on pretrial release, have never been to prison before, and don't know anybody whose ever been to prison, you might want to call RDAP Dan. I was denied pretrial release, so I had plenty of free prison consultants. Had I not been held without bail in violation of the Eighth Amendment, I might have considered hiring a federal prison consultant because I didn't know anybody who'd ever been to federal prison back then. I didn't live a criminal lifestyle, so I wouldn't have cared about prison politics because I didn't know much about them. If you're charged with a white collar offense like tax evasion, insider trading, money laundering, bank fraud, etc. you might want to call RDAP Dan. White collar guys are often eager to meet Dan's "accountability" requirements. Even if they don't have an opportunity for a 5K1 like Dan had, he seems quite skilled in the art of presenting the court with a remorseful image. White collar guys would likely work well with Dan. If you're a junkie looking to get time off by completing a residential drug abuse program (RDAP) call RDAP Dan. I'm nowhere near qualified to tell you much about RDAP. I can tell you that I spent a few months somewhere with an RDAP unit and people were not accusing the RDAP guys of snitching much. Don't know why and never thought to ask until RDAP Dan called snitching a requirement. There must be several ways to get through that without actually snitching on anyone. If you didn't really have a serious problem and want to do RDAP anyway call RDAP Dan. Dan described the substance abuse "problem" which he used to get into RDAP as alcohol and marijuana abuse. I understand that some people lose control of their drinking and that leads to problems, but marijuana is not like that. If you want to know how to get into RDAP just by being a pothead that drinks (like me) call RDAP Dan. I'm sure there are several other types of people that might work well with him. He certainly knows how to work the system to his benefit. Innocent people might be able to work with Dan provided he believes them to be innocent. I doubt Dan would throw someone under the bus he believes to be innocent. I don't think he would get hung up on not taking "accountability" if he thinks someone is truly innocent. An innocent person should be compatible with Dan. WHO SHOULDN'T WORK WITH RDAP DAN? If you're actively involved with criminal activity don't call Dan. If you're trying to cover up a crime or get away with a crime don't call Dan unless you can get him under Sixth Amendment protection. I consider him a major liability for anyone actively involved with criminal activity. If you're an active gang member don't call Dan. Just associating with Dan is enough to get some gangs to label you a rat by association. They say, "if you f*ck with a rat you're a rat too." If you consider yourself a political prisoner and are unwilling to legitimize the government by taking "accountability" for your unjust imprisonment don't call Dan. Dan is liable to accuse you of refusing to "take accountability" in the press. If you're willing to claim responsibility for your crime but consider the punishment sought by the government to be excessive, you might not want to call Dan. I was always willing to plead guilty to a single count of threatening communications and agree to computer monitoring as well as a ban on alcohol/substance abuse. I'd already learned that sending threats in the future would probably be a bad idea, so I wasn't unwilling to let them monitor my email to make sure I don't send threatening emails or make sure I wasn't getting drunk like I was when I sent the email. They made it about a website instead, so from then on out I didn't feel I had much of a choice but to fight them. Otherwise it would have looked like the website was just uncharged criminal conduct. Had I hired RDAP Dan I don't think we would have gotten along. If you want your lawyer to dig up every little piece of dirt he can find on your "victim" or anyone else supporting the government's case for the purpose of smearing anyone on their side in court, online, and in the press as a punishment for using the courts don't call Dan. Had I called Dan I think our relationship would have disintegrated just like my relationship with my lawyer disintegrated but faster and worse. I think Dan would have likely dropped me as a client and blasted me on his podcast. If you're unwilling to submit your mind to government brainwashing or at least act as if you've been brainwashed don't call Dan. A lot of what he says sounds like it came straight from the mouth of staff members at the federal halfway house I was at. Most of those people were low skilled and did little more than regurgitate what the government told them to tell us. By low skilled I mean that while many had 4 and in some cases 5 year degrees they were almost always in worthless fields of study like social work. They're capable of outwitting most people they meet in the system, but when they encounter people they know to be more intelligent with more advanced skills unwilling to submit to them, and willing to fight back they often resort to ganging up on the person with excessive tattling, lies, and exaggerations. Dan does not appear to be someone willing to work with anyone unwilling to let some piss ant social worker tell them what to do. If you don't want to take responsibility for the behavior of other people you might not want to call Dan. I recall Dan saying something when Charlotte Laws was on his podcast about one of Hunter Moore's associates not taking enough responsibility to be on his show. Prerequisites like that are totally inappropriate for shows about the injustice system. If he thinks somebody needs to take responsibility for something he should book them as a guest and tell them that. He shouldn't deny Moore' associates a voice just because they don't feel responsible for his website. The only person responsible for the behavior of Hunter Moore is Hunter Moore. Contacting Moore's associates is one reason why I categorized Laws as a stalker. She also followed him around in public wearing a disguise for the purpose of helping others subject him to unwanted contact. Such conduct fits the definition of the word "stalk" from the dictionary which means, "to pursue quarry or prey stealthily" (https://ift.tt/vMYmtb2). There are of course many other types of people probably not compatible with RDAP Dan. Working with Dan could lead to increased anxiety. Even without his history many people would be worried about him being subpoenaed just because attorney client confidentiality doesn't appear to apply to him. CONCLUSION RDAP Dan seems limited in his compatibility capacity. By that I mean he seems a good match for a lot of people and a horrible match for others. If you're compatible with him then listening to and working with him probably has a good chance of minimizing your sentence. If you're not a match you're best off not bothering him. Whether working with him is worth the risk depends largely on what Sixth Amendment protections if any apply to prison consultants. If he can be brought on as an official member of the defense team subject to the Sixth Amendment then he loses the ability to legally tell on you for the most part. NOTE: I have decided not to post Dan's most recent home addresses, phone numbers, and personal email address as a reward for helping people get less time. I've done countless snitch investigations over the years and this is the first time I've found one that may have saved other people more time than he gave someone. However, I do think he needs to adjust his figures to account for the amount of time his clients have cost others in order to save themselves time per his advice. If someone reduced their sentence by 5 years, but got their co-defendant 5 more by ratting per Dan's advice then the total amount of time saved in that case is zero, but Dan would likely take credit for reducing someone's time by 5 years when in fact he just made someone else do 5 years. Dan claims to have reduced peoples sentences by over 100 years, but I doubt it would be that high if he subtracted time served by co-defendants due to ratting. Still, it is likely that he could have saved people 11 years by now which is what his partner got. I don't want to discourage anyone from offering services capable of helping others get out of prison faster nor do I want to put Dan out of business. I just want to make sure people who're are not compatible with him know the risks. #danwise #huntermoore #charlottelaws #prisonconsultants #deasource https://copblaster.com/blast/48874/federal-prison-consultant-rdap-dan-also-federal-prison-rat
Crawford County Sheriffs Deputies Zack King, Levi White and Mulberry Police Officer Thell Riddle have been widely identified by now as the Arkansas officers caught on camera beating an unarmed black man and smashing his head into the pavement. All three officers have been suspended and the feds have launched a civil rights investigation. As the legal experts in the video below say, just because the victim in this case, Randal Worcester, may have assaulted the officers earlier, that doesn't justify beating him up after he is on the ground and helpless. This video hits close to home due to the founder of Cop Blaster winning a lawsuit against the United States last year (https://ift.tt/zM5Nlr0). That lawsuit was in response to similar treatment from federal officers employed by the Bureau of Prisons. That incident began with the theft of pens by SHU staff at USP Victorville. The victim of the theft responded by elbowing one of the officers in the face. After the victim was taken to the ground with his hands cuffed behind his back, officers punched him in the head repeatedly and left him in bone tight restraints for the next shift to find. The initial elbow justified taking him to the ground, but not the rest of it. The same is true in this case. Even if Worcester had just killed an officer that still wouldn't justify punching him, kicking him, or slamming his head into the ground after he was incapacitated. The victim's step father, Eric Wedding, told the media, "I hope they burn." His feeling are absolutely 100% completely justified. We just hope for his sake nobody actually sets the officers or any of their property on fire. We were already working on this article when we learned of the quote, so we used it to make the title better. We are not trying to get anyone or anything set on fire. This article is a work in progress with more coming soon. For now we are publishing what we have to make sure that the personal identifying information of these officers gets out there and stays out there. We ask that nobody take the victim's family's wish that they "burn" literally. We do not wish for any physical harm to befall these officers. The intention here is to deter other officers from doing the same thing by making it known that if they get caught they'll have to deal with their information being posted. We also consider them dangers to the community that their neighbors would probably want to know about. On top of that we always hope that someone might use this information to peacefully picket them. We did a background check on these guys and found the following information in public records: THELL FAY RIDDLE 550 SPRING AVE MULBERRY, AR 72947-8918 BORN: MAR-1971 POSSIBLE EMAIL: THELLRIDDLE[at]YAHOO.COM We have matched the address history of this Thell Riddle with the known career path of Mulberry Police Officer Thell Riddle. Officer Riddle used to be the Chief of Police in Gans, Oklahoma. This Thell Riddle had a post office there at the same time, but appears to have been living across the border in Arkansas. Riddle is a registered Democrat. LEVI GARRETT WHITE 4040 ANTLER DR GREENWOOD, AR 72936-6839 BORN: DEC-1990 POSSIBLE PHONE NUMBER: 479-965-6565 There are not many people named Levi Garrett White and we could find only one in the state of Arkansas who just happens to live in the next county. Probably not a coincidence. White is a registered Republican. ZACKARY TYLER KING 408 W 9TH ST MULBERRY, AR 72947-8929 BORN: NOV-1995 The CCSO has already accused people of sharing the address of the wrong Zack King on social media. There is a good possibility of that being the case due to there being several guys named Zack King and some outlets falsely spelled his first name as Zach which doubled the pool of likely candidates. We believe we figured out which Zack King is the right one by first figuring out his middle initial. To do that we went to a website called GovSalaries and found a single listing for a CCSO deputy named Zackary T. King (https://ift.tt/VhJ8DA5). We then ran a background check to find one Zackary T. King in Arkansas. There were two results only one of whom is currently listed as living in the state of Arkansas. There is a remote possibility that Deputy King had his information removed from the database, but we rarely encounter cases of beat cops being smart enough to do that. Usually, we only see that with federal judges, prosecutors, and agents, but rarely with others. We are confident that this Zack King is probably the same person. #thellriddle #zachking #leviwhite #randalworcester #assault
The Most Hated Man on the Internet must have rubbed Judge Dolly Gee the right way to get better release conditions than less serious offenders. Revenge porn dude Hunter Moore was also treated more favorably during the pre-trial phase and seemingly every other phase except when it came to the length of his sentence. I know because I am one of those less serious offenders. In 2015, controlling precedent in the Ninth Circuit allowed for total bans on computer use without prior approval from probation. I received such a ban in 2013 for sending a single death threat the previous year to a deranged stalker that hounded me for months just because I wouldn't remove something her ex posted from a site of mine. What I wouldn't remove had nothing to do with porn, didn't even include a picture. I was convicted in federal court for making threatening communication in violation of 18 U.S.C. 875 (c). My release conditions included the following: "The defendant is prohibited from using or possessing any computer(s) and/or directing third parties to do so on his behalf (including any handheld computing device, any electronic device capable of connecting to any on-line service, or any data storage media) without the prior written approval of the U.S. Probation Officer. This includes, but is not limited to, computers at public libraries, Internet cafes, or the defendant's place of employment or education." Controlling precedent at the time didn't consider this condition to be a total ban on computer use. I appealed to the Ninth Circuit, but because of my appellate waiver they could only review for plain error. The court held that my ban was not a ban "because the conditions are not absolute, but permit access subsequent to approval by Probation." See United States vs. Sullivan (https://ift.tt/eQBECRf). My appeal was denied in 2014, so I was surprised to learn that Hunter Moore received far more favorable conditions in 2015 despite doing far worse. Moore worked with a hacker named Charles Evens to acquire naked pictures of over 40 women which Moore posted on his website. Moore knew the pictures were hacked the entire time. I feel that Moore's conduct was more serious than mine, so if anybody should have been banned from computers it should have been Moore. Moore received extremely favorable conditions of supervised release by comparison. The most favorable condition Moore received was the ability to use any computer as long as he told his probation officer before using it. That condition read: "The defendant shall possess and use only those computers and computer-related devices, screen user names, passwords, e-mail accounts, and Internet service providers (ISPs) that have been disclosed to the Probation Officer upon commencement of supervision. Any changes or additions are to be disclosed to the Probation Officer prior to the first use. Computers and computer-related devices include personal computers, personal data assistants (PDAs), Internet appliances, electronic games, cellular telephones, and digital storage media, as well as their peripheral equipment, that can access, or be modified to access, the Internet, electronic bulletin boards, and other computers;" Moore was also ordered to consent to a search of any computer he used, but was granted immunity from search at work. That condition read: "All computers, computer-related devices and their peripheral equipment used by defendant shall be subject to search and seizure. This shall not apply to items used at the employment site, which are maintained and monitored by the employer; " Those conditions would have allowed Moore to look for a job online, own a smart phone and work a computer access job. I was denied all three when I was sent to the Northwest Regional Re-Entry Center (NWRRC) to complete the last six months of my sentence. Those conditions literally drove me mad and led to a consecutive 24 month sentence for assaulting a federal employee. I spent nearly 4 months pacing the halls every weekday while the TVs were turned off and everyone else was either at work, in the computer room looking for work, or playing with their phones. The staff could tell I as losing it. They sent a psychologist to talk to me multiple times, but there was nothing he could do because my state of mind was the product of my environment. Had my probation officer at the time, Rene Worthey (https://ift.tt/LzTFg4J), simply given me permission to use monitored computers to seek jobs that were not limited to non-computer access jobs, I would not have gone back to prison because I would have been busy sitting in the computer room looking for work all day. Technically, my P.O. did let me use a computer in the computer room for about an hour one day. Then I was kicked out of the room for being overheard making a disparaging comment about the so called "victim" from my case. I wasn't accused of abusing the computer, but using "abusive language" while sitting at one. That was enough for her to tell the head of the employment department not to let me use computers anymore. Eventually, they tried to blackmail me into signing a ridiculous contract by threatening to send me back to prison if I didn't sign it. The contract (see last 2 pages at https://ift.tt/Lr9pAJi), said among other things, "You may only have access to the computer between 12:30 PM and 3:30PM, M-F" and "you will be given one hour to complete your job search." Nobody can be reasonably expected to find work if they're only allowed to look for work 5 hours a week. The contract also read, "You may go to the following two websites: Simply Hired and Craigslist. If a website attempts to navigate you to a third party website you MUST talk to Resource Staff before going to it." I wouldn't legitimize such an outrageous contract with my signature, so I slapped the head of the employment department in the face. There were no punches as alleged in the police report. Video footage clearly showed a single slap to the face. For that I received a hero's welcome back at jail from other guys who'd been sent back by the same person. In 2016, the Ninth Circuit changed the law by declaring that a proviso permitting computer access as approved by probation does not cure what otherwise is a total ban on computer use. Now I can say that I was the real victim in that case because the assault was a direct response to a government employee voluntarily subjecting me to an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty. I think Thomas Jefferson would approve. In United States v. LaCoste (https://ift.tt/FsxVJ7P), the court held: "The government seeks to defend the condition as drafted by arguing that it is not really a total ban, since it allows LaCoste to use the Internet so long as he first obtains his probation officer's approval. That proviso does not save what is otherwise a plainly overbroad restriction on LaCoste's liberty. When a total ban on Internet access cannot be justified, as is the case here, we have held that a proviso for probation-officer approval does not cure the problem. See Sales, 476 F.3d at 737. And for good reason: If a total ban on Internet use is improper but a more narrowly tailored restriction would be justified, the solution is to have the district court itself fashion the terms of that narrower restriction. Imposing a total ban and transferring open-ended discretion to the probation officer to authorize needed exceptions is not a permissible alternative. See United States v. Scott, 316 F.3d 733, 736 (7th Cir.2003)." Since a total ban could not be justified in my case, my conditions were modified to permit monitored access. My second probation officer, Matthew Preuitt (https://ift.tt/md43DX1), forced me to use software which slowed every computer I installed in on to a halt. His refusal to try different software applications developed by different companies and used by law enforcement for the same purposes was unreasonable. Monitoring was used to create an effective ban on computer use by making any computer I used unusable. My lawyer didn't want to file an objection with the court citing a conflict of interest between my desire to challenge the condition's enforcement methods and his desire to serve his other clients. He basically gave me the impression that because I was not in custody that he wanted to prioritize serving people in custody over me, so I needed to work it out with probation and the monitoring company. He later withdrew. He was the third lawyer to withdraw from my case against my wishes. Future counsel advised that if they withdrew, the court was not likely to appoint me others. Turns out a person can be held as having effectively waived their right to counsel if they push their counsel too much. This means that if the court appoints too many lawyers that quit you're not entitled to one anymore. My response was to fight my own way by disabling the monitoring software (https://ift.tt/f3EWPNV) and creating a website called Cop Blaster which at launch featured articles containing disparaging truths about everyone involved in prosecuting me as well as their home addresses in many cases. I told my lawyer that I would take the site down if he challenged the monitoring as directed. The idea was to scare him with the thought of causing him so much work that he would realize making my case his top priority was the best thing he could do to make sure he might still have time for his other clients. I also explained that the addresses were posted in response to three things. The first thing was Demer or "someone" in his office leaking a confidential jail document into a public case file containing my SSN and all my medical information which gave my stalker leverage she could never have legally obtained while allowing her to say it was legally obtained from a public case file. The second thing was the government protecting someone that posted addresses of my relatives on her website even after I told them that I would do the same to them if they enabled her at all. The third thing was Assistant United States Attorney Sean Hoar or "someone" in his office issuing a press release with my old address in it on top of the false narrative. My reaction to that release was the "outburst" reported by the computer room staff at NWRRC. I partly blame that "outburst" on my own people for failing to monitor the internet and send me all mentions of my case as directed. Had they done so instead of intentionally keeping me in the dark and refusing to help me fight back at all, the release would not have been a surprise. I demanded that the address be removed from Justice.gov and other federal law enforcement websites. The government eventually capitulated. Some might say I censored the government. I responded by blocking the address field on pages like this one and focusing the map on the center of town. However, that address block will fail if I am prevented from logging into my account for more than 14 days. I typed "unknown" into the address field for this article to trigger the censor as a demo. I was of course found guilty of violating the conditions of my release, but was acquitted of the most serious violation. My alleged violations included failure to participate in computer monitoring, failing to follow the instructions of the probation officer, and contacting the victim. That last one was for a post I wrote about the lies my stalker told, how crazy she is, and how the government had basically broken the plea agreement which included a part stemming from my . I had already removed her STD report at the request of the author before my arrest, so everything left at that point was due to our fight over my refusal to remove a post that her ex could have removed at any time simply by verifying his email address or logging into his account. Instead, he strung me along for months sending me emails trying to do everything he could to verify who he was without verifying ownership of the account or the email used at sign up. He had me thinking he was either an impostor or a chicken shit afraid of being linked to the account. He was the latter, but in his defense he seemed to be under duress. He always insisted in his emails to me that everything in his report was true, but he was afraid of her and Demer. I knew that posting about someone is not the same as contacting them even if you know they will read it. My lawyers argued that at my violation hearing and won, so she wasn't so legitimate after all. In late 2011, she presented herself as a victim enforcing a lawful no contact order when in fact she was abusing a no contact order to stop someone from exercising his First Amendment rights. That press release seemed like an effort to reduce the value of the plea "deal" on my end by re-posting some of the same stuff. I had made it clear that if anyone followed in her footsteps I would re-post stuff about her in ways intended to direct her removal efforts towards that person. The release also pushed a false narrative with no regard for chronological accuracy. They mixed up the order of events to make it appear as though she stalked me in response to a monetary demand of $10,000 for the removal of the report when in fact it was only a search engine suppression service priced far lower. I didn't up the price to $10,000 until after I had proof that she was the one stalking me and confronted her about it. I gave her a fuck off price because I didn't want her business. Think about it, if she wouldn't pay 10% of that or 5% of that during promotions why would someone in my position have any reasonable expectation of her paying so much more? That is why my later threat was not extortionate because it wasn't really an attempt to get money. My conduct after sending it that day included a retraction. I was not arrested until 3 days later. However, after I threatened to use my sites against the detectives in the interrogation room (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7dhlcFJlvM), Deputy District Attorney Kevin Demer decided to repeat everything she said as if it were a verified fact from then on out. Demer also got my bail increased from $25,000 to $1,000,000 simply by swearing to the court that he thought I intended to kill the victim if released. If he really thought I was going to kill her why did he wait 3 days to send the Warrant Strike Team? Probably because it took that long for him to talk to Hoar and decide that was their best shot at ever being able to legally do anything to me. Demer's name was not new to me because her ex had sent me emails accusing him of misconduct in his case and she referred to him as not being pleased with my decision not to remove the report. I found it odd that he would prosecute me himself due to his prior association with the alleged victim. An ethical prosecutor would have recused himself. It seemed odd that he would take issue with the internet postings at that time when he could have done something months earlier simply by emailing me if it were in fact true that the named defendant was subject to an order requiring removal. I told my stalker to have him send it to me because unlike most cases there was no disputing who wrote the report. The author signed up with an email address from a domain registered in his own name. Demer also got me banned from using the phone for anything but attorney calls. The jail staff enforced it by making me a "walk alone" so that they would only have me to watch when I got out of my cell for 2 hours a day. They also said it was so I wouldn't get other inmates to make calls for me, but that aspect of it was easily circumventable. The justification for the phone ban was absurd. Demer suggested that I could potentially have a mysterious unidentified accomplice waiting for a green light on the outside. My phone ban was overturned in part thanks to Mohamed Mohamud whose last use of a phone as a free man made it easy for my lawyer to say that if he was allowed to use the phone then I certainly should be. Mohamud's last use of a phone as a free man was a pair of calls to what he believed to be a detonator wired to an 1,800 pound fertilizer bomb. It turned out to be a fake planted by the FBI (https://ift.tt/bEkn4wa). He gave me permission to use him as an example of someone more deserving of a phone ban than me. If he was allowed to use the phone after trying to use one to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony then surely I should have been allowed to use the phone. The judge agreed. I'm sure Hunter Moore was allowed to use the phone. My bail stayed at $1,000,000 until the case was moved to federal court the following year. The goal of the high bail was clearly to buy time for the feds to investigate my business. When the local judge told Demer to take the case to trial or drop it, I was indicted in federal court. In Oregon there is no bail in federal court. If you're neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community you're supposed to be released for free with conditions. The downside of that is if you're declared a danger to the community like I was there is no way out because instead of having a high bail you have no bail. Hunter Moore was grated pretrial release which allowed him to get his affairs in order before going to prison. I had no such luxury. However, unlike Moore I have a spinal cord and would not have remained silent if released. That was the real reason for the high bail and denial of pretrial release. They knew that I would use my sites and more to expose who they were and what they were doing. The federal system doesn't require that the defendant pose a physical danger to anyone to be declared a danger to the community because they define danger to include violations of pretrial release conditions. If the court knows that the defendant will not comply with unconstitutional speech restrictions as release conditions that person is considered a danger to the community. Everyone has a First Amendment right to disparage those that weaponize the courts against them provided they don't lie or in the case of no contact orders include language directed directly at them like "Jane Doe, if you're reading this I think you're crazy." Defendants and convicts are no different. When you plead guilty to a crime you lose some of your constitutional rights, but freedom of speech is not one of them. Yet, the courts are frequently abused in efforts to silence true speech in the name of victim protection. Unlike me, Hunter Moore's conditions included, "The defendant shall not attempt to locate the victims or the victims' families or attempt to obtain information concerning the whereabouts, phone numbers, email addresses, or other personal identifiers of the victims or the victims' families." That condition and a sister condition prohibiting him from possessing "personal identifying information of the victims" were likely the results of concessions offered by Moore himself to assure a lighter sentence. If challenged it could likely be argued that the conditions constitute an unconstitutional restraint on speech capable of crippling the information gathering capabilities of investigative journalists in violation of the First Amendment. There are some other differences in my case which might explain the actions of probation. Specifically, the unlawful seizure of a list from an envelope of mine clearly marked confidential legal material which contained correspondence with my attorney. I also had my sites standing by ready to be re-activated upon payment to the hosting company. They said the server was just sitting there because they'd already performed a backup service for my attorney. I basically had my boys at the hosting company standing back and standing by. That is why I was banned from directing any third party to use a computer on my behalf. If I were to have re-launched the sites while still at NWRRC as a pre-release inmate, I would just get sent back to Sheridan for the remainder of my sentence and lose 30 days good time. Publicly humiliating the government by turning my sites back on while technically still a Bureau of Prisons (BOP) inmate would have been worth losing 30 days good time and having to do the rest of my time in the hole. The consequences wouldn't have really gotten real for me until I was released and actually on supervision instead of being an inmate finishing a sentence. That is why when the monitoring software was finally installed at NWRRC after nearly two months, they found any excuse they could to justify banning me from computers. I tend to run circles around corrections personnel intellectually and that intimidates them. Often all they can do is throw up smoke screens and hope they're enough to make people stop listening to me. They knew my skills were better than theirs and decided to stop me from using them entirely. One staff member once told me off the record, "people above me think you can't be trusted with your skillset." I took that to mean that I was miles beyond my P.O. in terms of computer skills and she probably didn't think she could keep up. Despite how cool it would have been to humiliate the government by re-launching my sites from a correctional facility, I offered never to run them again. I told Worthey that the best chance they had of making sure the sites never came back was to let me seek work in my field because with the right fit there was a good chance I might have decided I was too busy or just didn't want to piss off my boss by the time I got off supervision. She should have accepted that offer. Instead, I received a consecutive 24 month sentence for assaulting a federal employee. That employee quit and received a $25,000 settlement from NWRRC. I felt like I'd performed community service. My points were increased more than they should have been, so I couldn't go back to Sheridan because its just a medium. There are no high security facilities in the northwest, so they sent me to Victorville. Mohamud was sent to Victorville as well, but he was at the medium across the street. Hunter Moore was sent to a low. When I arrived in Victorville, I found out that I had 24 points. That is the bare minimum necessary to be there. They included a small number of points for minor history of escape in the past 5 years. They said NWRRC wrote me up for "technical escape" after leaving NWRRC without prior written authorization by being arrested, placed in a Portland Police car and taken to jail. I was found guilty in absentia and Victorville Disciplinary Hearings Officer (DHO) Diana Elliott upheld it despite not being able to provide a credible answer to the question, "how do you escape into a police car?" The regional office overturned her decision on appeal. I was released from Victorville in May of 2016. LaCoste was decided just a couple days after I met Preuitt for the first time and was told I did not have permission to use a computer. I responded by filing a pro se motion to modify my conditions and a second motion for appointment of counsel. I was forced to wait until October for a hearing after which my conditions were changed to allow monitored access. For reasons already explained, I ended up getting violated. I received a six month revocation with slightly modified conditions of supervision. My new conditions included a restriction on posting home addresses of government officials on this website and the removal of information about named "victims" in my cases which I agreed to because the government redacted some of their bullshit from their press release, but probation did not succeed at getting me banned from computers again or ordered to take this site down thanks to LaCoste. I was still banned from operating any of my old websites or providing any sort of reputation management services. Hunter Moore had no employment restrictions. At one point I got lucky and was able to take advantage of a then soon to be overturned Ninth Circuit precedent which required that my supervision time not be tolled for the time I spent in pre-trial detention due to what happened about a week before I was supposed to be sentenced for my violation. A deputy broke my arm and several falsely accused me of assault. As a result, the majority of my remaining 24 months of supervision were served in custody. The motive behind the arm breaking seems to be my threat to post information about jail staff on this website. As trial approached, the government provided no evidence of anybody being injured other than myself. Deputies that claimed to have been punched and kicked didn't seek medical attention or take pictures. My lawyers retained a bruise expert to testify that anyone struck as hard as they claimed would have been bruised. They also hired a biomechanics expert to show that my arm couldn't possibly have been broken in the manner claimed by deputies (https://ift.tt/5J23dGH). That was enough to make the government change their tone. AUSA Greg Nyhus was replaced. His replacement quickly and kindly offered me time served even though the guidelines recommended more if I pled to the lesser charge of impeding a federal officer for throwing a handful of spicy chips in the face of Deputy Timothy Barker as he entered my cell. I would never have been charged for that in the first place had it not been for the more serious accusations of injury based solely on the statements of deputies with no real evidence. Hunter Moore never had his arm broken by jail staff and was never held without evidence. I was the victim of selective prosecution (https://ift.tt/5ft1Nu8). When I got out, I only had a few months of supervision time left on my old cases. I spent a lot of that time trying to find a lawyer to help me sue the county for intentionally breaking my arm. I thought with an expert on board already some lawyer would hop on it. However, the government's smear campaign had discredited me so much that every lawyer lost interest the second they found out about the guilty plea. They didn't think a jury could look past the optics of a guilty defendant suing the named victim in a case no matter how many experts are thrown at them. They wouldn't say it out loud, but I suspect they researched my history, noticed that three of my prior lawyers had withdrawn from my underlying case citing non-violent conflicts and probably figured we'd get into some sort of conflict eventually. Hunter Moore only had one lawyer quit on him. Still, I was surprised not to land one because it was obvious that my arm was not broken during the cell extraction on the fifth floor, but rather on the fourth floor in a cell while I was face down on a mattress with 300 pounds of Barker on my back. I wasn't going to let them get away with that, so I sued them myself. I had started practicing law in prison by representing myself in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The claim ultimately failed, but I pushed it into the Ninth Circuit all by myself which is rare. Certificates of Appealability (COAs) are seldom granted by district courts in ineffective counsel claims brought by inmates against their plea/trial phase counsel. Almost every inmate tries to find his lawyer incompetent somehow. COAs are granted "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 2253(c)(2). The idea is to make it so that appellate courts are not overburdened by every inmate that appeals every unfavorable decision from the district court. Not just any idiot can get a COA. It was enough to entitle me to yet another court appointed lawyer. I had four lawyers at once for awhile. Both of my appeals were heard the same day and I lost them both (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chn6OlKg29g). I didn't get back online until March of 2019. Probation finally assigned a competent officer to my case. He let me use Remote-com monitoring software instead of IPPC. It worked great. In September of 2019 I brought back some of my old sites after my supervision in my first case expired. Thanks to the Dutch server none of the websites ever fell into government hands. I did the same thing with this site in 2017. When I got out in late 2018 this site was still up. The primary reason they were able to take my sites down in 2012 was because I was in the process of migrating to a different company. I wasn't paid up very long because I'd outgrown them. Despite that, syndicators stayed up until early the following year and affiliated social media accounts were still live when I got out. In 2020, I was finally able to tell my side to The Daily Caller (https://ift.tt/lasLeRw). The article pointed out that I "still operate the websites and services that prosecutors said in 2013 was a fraud." The only way I could clear my name after the government's smear campaign was to bring back the sites while still on federal supervision. Had they been illegal I would have been charged with violating a standard condition of supervision against engaging in new criminal conduct. Brining them back was necessary to clear my name. Now people know that I never operated a criminal enterprise. You can watch Moore talk about his supervision time in the video below. #huntermoore #charlesevens #dollygee #fcibeaumont #mohamedmohamud
Locksmith Empire business specialize first with customer satisfaction, we will be the first to show up and help you with smile. we also known as car keys best company in west coast. we do it all automotive residential commercial and emergency. Services Offered: - All Lockout Services - Cabinet Lock Services - Lock Installation - Car Key Repair - Car Key Making - Vehicle Lockouts - Building Lockouts - Locks Change/Rekey #locksmithempire #lockoutservices #lockinstallation
Terry Alan Walsh testified in court. Paperwork will be posted. Greenlight. Sarah is also on the same paperwork #snitchratterrywalsh
An officer with the Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Parole has been arrested for having sex with a parolee. Probation Officer Jeremy Damon Hall of the Tuscaloosa field office is currently facing a single count of custodial sexual misconduct. His bail was set at $10,000. Not much is known about this case so far. We know that the Tuscaloosa Violent Crimes Unit investigated the matter after Hall's superiors received a complaint, but the specifics of the complaint have not been published by the press. The press have pointed out that consent is not a defense because it is always illegal for a probation officer to have sex with a parolee. According to public records, Jeremy Damon Hall is a 31 year old resident of Tuscaloosa, Alabama. We are not releasing his address at this time because we don't know if this was a predatory act or not. The absence of other charges suggests that this is the result of what would have otherwise been a consensual relationship. If he was blackmailing her that would be grounds for other charges. We have located what we believe to be Hall's personal Twitter account at https://twitter.com/334jhall. Our background check service linked that account to the email address jeremydhall09[at]aol.com. Besides including Jeremy D. Hall in the address, the year 2009 is probably when the 31 year old Hall graduated from high school. That Twitter account has not been used since 2013. Some of the Tweets are funny. In one he asks, "If I fart on the plane, you think these ppl will get mad?" #jeremyhall #sexoffenders #sexualmisconduct
Image Credit: Hikes, LLC Media Prima Berhad, Malaysia's leading media company, has been hit with a ransomware attack by 'heart Eh yze' ransomware group followed by a whopping $6.45 million demand for the decryption keys. Anonymous sources from within the company told The Edge Financial Daily that the attack unfolded over four days, and that ransomware operators demanded the company pay 1,000 bitcoins in ransom the equivalent of RM27,042.26, or US$6.45 million. The whole Media Prima groups computer systems have been breached and infected with ransomware over the last four days, said the source. The attackers demanded 1,000 bitcoins from Media Prima in the ransomware attack. Asked to comment via email, Media Prima would neither confirm nor deny the breach, saying: Thank you for the questions. It is with regret [we have] to inform you that we decline to comment on the questions. Another source, however, indicated that the attack was not very serious at all, and that Media Prima declined paying the ransom. Our office email was affected, but we have migrated to G Suite. They (the attackers) demanded bitcoins, but we are not paying, this source said. It is unclear what ransomware family was used in the attack. It is also unclear whether the operators had direct access to physical systems (an inside job would not be out of the question), or if they used social engineering schemes to make their way into Media Primas infrastructure and deploy the attack. It is worth noting that ransomware operators typically use social engineering to trick victims into granting internal access. Whichever the case, going by the sum requested by the operators, the attack was very likely targeted. #ransomeware #heartehyes #malware #threatactor #vxunderground
Justin Berry was just appointed to the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCLE) by Governor Greg Abbott. Berry is currently under indictment for shooting a demonstrator at a Black Lives Matter protest in 2020 with a beanbag round fired from a shotgun (https://ift.tt/69jBhzq). Berry is alleged to have inflicted serious body injury by using excessive force without just cause. He should have been suspended without pay pending the outcome of his criminal case, but instead was promoted to an oversight board in charge of setting minimum licensing standards for police. Berry also ran for office and has a history of targeting activist groups. Berry ran for the District 19 seat in the Texas House of Representatives earlier this year. He was defeated in the Republican primary by Ellen Troxclair. Berry received about 43.5% of the vote. He promoted himself as a law and order conservative. He also used his indictment to boost his profile among the Thin Blue Line crowd. Berry has been an enemy of the people since at least 2012. That year he began a campaign of defamation by labeling as "domestic extremists" several groups including Anonymous, CopBlock, CopWatch, and Peaceful Streets. Tech Dirt wrote an excellent article about Berry's activities (https://ift.tt/Fgw2CGE) which included a PDF. We are uploading the PDF with this article, so you should be able to read it by clicking the little PDF icon above the map. According to public records, Justin Lee Berry is a 37 year old white male residing in Austin, Texas. His last known home address is 2708 Lawrence Drive. We are making that address publicly available for any protest groups that have anything to say about the TCLE or Justin Berry. We have a First Amendment right to post information like that about government employees (https://ift.tt/bOJA5Wc). As always, we ask that you not use this information for any unlawful purpose. We would be happy to remove his address if he resigns or is convicted and sent to prison. #justinberry #gregabbott #anonymous #copblock #copwatch #assault
She's a pos methead snitch who will set anyone to cover her own cowardly ass, she's also a sorry mom who doest even have her kids #metheadsnitch
Oregonians cannot sue law enforcement officials that intentionally make false claims in official reports because courts believe that government officials cannot do their jobs otherwise. I found this out a couple years ago when Multnomah County moved to dismiss defamation claims I filed against several corrections deputies. The deputies intentionally made false accusations in their incident reports to cover up how one of their own intentionally broke my arm. Those statements were also used to overcharge me with a bodily injury enhancement, but the enhancement was later dropped due to lack of evidence. The county's arguments against my defamation claims were two fold. First, they were time barred because I filed the claims too late. Second, the defendants were immune solely because state law grants absolute immunity to government officials which protects them from defamation claims. My defamation claims were dismissed for being time barred, so the judge never reviewed the county's immunity argument. If that argument has any merit, that merit is disturbing. "Oregon recognizes an absolute privilege for statements made in furtherance of public duties. Christianson v. State, 239 Or App 451, 459, 244 P3d 904, 908 (2010), Chamberlain v. City of Portland, 184 Or App. 487, 56 P 3d 497 (2002). This privilege is rooted in the maxim that the public's interest in the unhampered operation of the government, when exercising such functions, outweighs an individual's interest in the preservation of reputation. Johnson v. Brown, 193 Or. App. 375, 381, 91 P.3d 741, 744, decision clarified on reconsideration, 194 Or. App. 486, 95 P.3d 235 (2004), citing Wallulis v. Dymowski, 323 Or 337, 349, 918 P2d 755 (1996). Absolute privilege bars a defamation claim completely as a matter of law. DeLong v. Yu Enterprises, Inc., 334 Or 166, 170, 47 P3d 8 (2002). Because these reports were generated in the exercise of the MCSO staffs work as the corrections department for the County, the statements are privileged and cannot serve as defamation as a matter of law." - Bruce Andrew Jones, Attorney at Law County counsel seems to think law enforcement incapable of functioning if faced with the threat of a civil suit every time they lie. The Oregon Supreme Court shares this view. In the seminal case of Shearer v. Lambert, 274 Or. 449, 547 P.2d 98 (1976) (https://ift.tt/KzebNUF), the court held that "the privilege is designed to free public officers from intimidation in the discharge of their duties." That also classified the threat of a legitimate lawsuit in response to a false statement made by a government official as a form of intimidation. If being afraid of a legitimate misconduct lawsuit is a form of intimidation then no government official should ever be free from intimidation. If people want to create new laws cracking down on false or wrongfully disclosed information, they need to start with the people charged with enforcing the law in the first place. #oregonsupremecourt #defamation #libel