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