Below is the text of a discussion by Sherman Austin of the latest developments in his legal case. ================================================================ I didn't get convicted ... I went to court on Monday, Sept 30th to plead guilty to the distribution of information charge which was 1 month in jail, 5 months in half-way home and 3 years supervised release. However, the judge decided to REJECT the plea agreement. He stated that he wanted me to serve more than 12 months in prison, even though the maximum is 6-12 months under that charge based on my criminal history level. He was completly opposed to the idea of me spending 1 month in jail under the binding plea agreement that both me, my lawyer and the prosecuters had agreed on. The judge basicly tried to make me out as a terrorist, saying he didn't care how old I was, that I had a political philosphy behind distrbuting the information over my site, and it therefor was a very serious offense. My lawyer argued that both parties had spent counteless hours on the plea, and have even met in person to discuss details and had agreed on the plea. The judge was still defiant and very set on his decision saying it was necessary that I serve more time. The judge's decision hit my lawyer by surprise since he was very certain he was going to accept the plea. Very rarely does this happen. From here I have to go to trial, with an indictment, and a plea would have to be minimum 6 months in jail (if the judge will even accept that, which sounds like he wont because he made it very clear that he wanted me to serve the maximum sentence possible) ... so i'm not sure what i'm going to do. A plea would be 6+ months in jail, possibly even a year or more. If I go to trial i'm risking 3-4 years. my lawyer said the prosecuters are going to try and dig up another lesser charge for me to plead to instead of the distribution one, but it's highly unlikly they'll find anything. Off to trial... Quote: If you went to court in Va you'd probably get off with flying colors. Ahm, I dunno bout that. It's federal court. These judges are appointed by the Bush administration for life. They'll fuck you no matter what state you're in. And they'll fuck you well. Quote: So the prosecution is nicer than the judge? No .. Well, it was pretty weird. The prosecuter was trying to convince the judge as well that this was a binding plea between both parties, and had been agreed on. He told the judge that I wasn't a terrorist and that posting such information was not illegal, but the part which made it illegal was the intent part. But then as the judge was argueing and then prosecuter also said shit like yes, mr. austin formed various groups to go with him to demonstrations to use this information. which is complete bs. I dunno where the hell he got that from. that right there totally made me sound like a terrorist just after he openly told the judge, "mr. austin is not a terrorist" ... The judge was a real fucking asshole too. He was saying that posting such information regardless of any intenet should be illegal , with of course completly disregarding the 1st amendment and the thousands of non-anarchist web sites that have bomb making information on them. The judge was really defiant and had his decision set in stone. No way is he gonig to allow me to get anything under 6 months jail time, IF he even allows 6 months. So a trial date was to be set when my attorney gets back to the judge, and the FBI special agent conducting the investigation gave us a smirk as we walked out of the court room. something tells me there's some fishy mumbo jumbo going on. Quote: yo anti, i remember looking over your affadavit and going to websites hacked by 'ucaun' which the fbi agent claimed was you. i know you went under ucaun on this board at one time. was this charged dropped? was the hacker ucaun somebody else? They decided not to persue the hacking charges because of lack of evidence. They might however try to dig that up as a less serious charge for a new binding plea so this doesn't have to go to trial, which they really don't want to happen. Oh and what are your charges again? 18 U.S.C. 842 (p)(2)(A): DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO EXPLOSIVES, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WITH THE INTENT THAT SUCH INFORMATION BE USED IN FURTHERANCE OF A FEDERAL CRIME OF VIOLENCE; 26 U.S.C. 5861(d): POSSESSION OF A FIREARM WHICH IS NOT REGISTERED TO HIM IN THE NATIONAL FIREARMS REGISTRATION AND TRANSFER RECORD. Quote: And another thing is why don't they want to go to court sooooooooo badly? They don't want to go to trial because it's a high profile case and it's going to get allot of media attention ..etc. and so on. Quote: Also is your case serious enough for you to have a choice of a trial by jury? Yes, there would be a grand jury indictement. "There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows." - Washington Post Owner Katharine Graham, at a 1988 speech at CIA headquarters. "....And there was kind of like an embarrassed little silence at the table, and the editor of Newsweek, who was sitting next to me, says - I hope partly jokingly but I don't know - he says, "Sometimes we have to do what's good for the country." *Journalist Robert Parry (describing a dinner during the Iran-Contra affair at which Brent Scowcroft suggests that witnesses lie to protect Reagan's knowledge of Iranian arms sales.) March 1987