Anonymous ‘Hacktivist’ Says FBI Tried To Sentence Him To 440 Years After He Refused T

anvilfour

A man who was convicted of being a member of the “hacktivist” group Anonymous is now serving six-months in jail after he says he refused to work for the FBI.



The feds had originally slapped him with 44 charges, adding up to 440 years in a federal prison. Most of those were scrapped based on a lack of evidence to support them.

Fidel Salinas, 28, of Texas has now revealed that FBI agents asked him to help the United States gather information on Mexican drug cartels. When he refused to work with them, he claims that then and only then did they charge him with 44 counts.

Full article : http://alternativemediasyndicate.com/2015/02/20/fbi-tried-to-sentence-anonymous-hacktivist-to-440/

Quazzie

anvilfour wrote: »

Full article : http://alternativemediasyndicate.com/2015/02/20/fbi-tried-to-sentence-anonymous-hacktivist-to-440/

Some dude breaks the law
Some dude gets caught
Some dude gets offered deal by the law
Some dude refuses deal
Some dude takes to social media to tell all about the deal
All other dudes don't care

anvilfour

Quazzie wrote: »

Some dude breaks the law
Some dude gets caught
Some dude gets offered deal by the law
Some dude refuses deal
Some dude takes to social media to tell all about the deal
All other dudes don't care

I think the point here Quazzie is that the 44 charges were only slapped on him after he refused to assist... I think that the conventional way to make offers of this kind is to agree to inform the Judge that the Defendant is a reliable informant, is repentant etc. etc. after the charges have been applied, not using justice as a form of leverage.

Pat Mustard

anvilfour wrote: »

I think the point here Quazzie is that the 44 charges were only slapped on him after he refused to assist... I think that the conventional way to make offers of this kind is to agree to inform the Judge that the Defendant is a reliable informant, is repentant etc. etc. after the charges have been applied, not using justice as a form of leverage.

The fact that this guy was convicted and is serving six months in jail for breaking the law meant that the FBI had grounds to arrest him and charge him with the offence which grounded his conviction. So if they had grounds to arrest him and charge him, my guess is that they would have had the right to offer him a deal, in return for his cooperation. He refused to cooperate, the FBI prosecuted him and he was convicted by a court.

It's an interesting story but I don't see an abuse here. This guy is far from the Guildford Four.

anvilfour

Pat Mustard wrote: »

The fact that this guy was convicted and is serving six months in jail for breaking the law meant that the FBI had grounds to arrest him and charge him with the offence which grounded his conviction. So if they had grounds to arrest him and charge him, my guess is that they would have had the right to offer him a deal, in return for his cooperation. He refused to cooperate, the FBI prosecuted him and he was convicted by a court.

It's an interesting story but I don't see an abuse here. This guy is far from the Guildford Four.

I think it's an interesting question... perhaps one for the legal forums but I do think that the fact the man has broken the law doesn't mean that further punishment should be used as leverage to incriminate others.. if of course they want to offer mitigation for him cooperating that's another thing... perhaps this is too subtle a distinction?

Khannie

Pat Mustard wrote: »

It's an interesting story but I don't see an abuse here.

Ah they were a bit wankerish in fairness.

Pat Mustard

Khannie wrote: »

Ah they were a bit wankerish in fairness.

I agree.

anvilfour wrote: »

I think it's an interesting question... perhaps one for the legal forums but I do think that the fact the man has broken the law doesn't mean that further punishment should be used as leverage to incriminate others.. if of course they want to offer mitigation for him cooperating that's another thing... perhaps this is too subtle a distinction?

One difference between the US and here is that they can enter into deals over there which would not have effect in Ireland. For instance, immunity from prosecution can be exchanged for cooperation, etc. It also seems to me that it's common practice for law enforcement in the USA to lean on people who have been charged with crimes in order to make them cooperate.

If the guy wants to complain about the US criminal justice system as a whole, maybe he has a point, I don't know. If he is complaining that he was singled out for abuse, it doesn't look like that to me.

anvilfour

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I agree.


One difference between the US and here is that they can enter into deals over there which would not have effect in Ireland. For instance, immunity from prosecution can be exchanged for cooperation, etc. It also seems to me that it's common practice for law enforcement in the USA to lean on people who have been charged with crimes in order to make them cooperate.

If the guy wants to complain about the US criminal justice system as a whole, maybe he has a point, I don't know. If he is complaining that he was singled out for abuse, it doesn't look like that to me.

I suppose it depends on your definition of abuse of process. As you say it's quite lawful in the US to grant someone immunity from prosecution in exchange for cooperation - however this particular carrot wasn't dangled in front of him, he was just told he'd have a whole load of charges thrown at him if he didn't play nice... since this never went anywhere presumably there wasn't enough evidence to convict!

Manach

Offhand though, is there a de facto system of immunity from prosecution here in Ireland as well. This was from reading on some of the deals offered to various gangland members to turn informer after several high profile murders?

On topic, given the sentencing setup in the US and their "3-strikes" rule, having such high tariffs does seem to be a useful tool to make people be very co-operative with US authorities. <Cough> FIFA </Cough>.

anvilfour

Manach wrote: »

Offhand though, is there a de facto system of immunity from prosecution here in Ireland as well. This was from reading on some of the deals offered to various gangland members to turn informer after several high profile murders?

On topic, given the sentencing setup in the US and their "3-strikes" rule, having such high tariffs does seem to be a useful tool to make people be very co-operative with US authorities. <Cough> FIFA </Cough>.

I suppose my worry in these cases has to do with how far you can believe their guarantees... also if they believe you know something you actually don't, your lack of knowledge can be used to punish you further... turn it around and offer someone immunity in exchange for testimony they can just say they can't help!

Pat Mustard

anvilfour wrote: »

I suppose it depends on your definition of abuse of process. As you say it's quite lawful in the US to grant someone immunity from prosecution in exchange for cooperation - however this particular carrot wasn't dangled in front of him, he was just told he'd have a whole load of charges thrown at him if he didn't play nice... since this never went anywhere presumably there wasn't enough evidence to convict!

I found this article, which I thought was relevant. It changed my mind, anyway.

If it happened the way that Fidel Salinas says it happened, the FBI basically brought a charge against him and asked him for cooperation in bringing them evidence, not against Anonymous as might have been expected, but against Mexican drugs cartels and corrupt local officials who had received bribes from the cartels.

The following made sense for me:

Securing a defendant’s cooperation by threatening him or her with a mountain of charges is nothing new, says Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Hanni Fakhoury. But that’s usually accomplished by first charging the defendant and then allowing him or her to reduce punishment by working as an informant or offering information. “I’ve represented many defendants who were propositioned by the government to come into a room and cooperate,” says Fakhoury

In this case, Salinas’ claims—if they’re at all true—could represent the opposite: a vindictive indictment after a refusal to cooperate. “To proposition him first and punish him after is much rarer and would be much more problematic,” says Fakhoury. “If this is true, it’s very troubling and very improper.”

Of the two scenarios mentioned above, the first one is unpleasant but can occur in the USA. However, the second scenario is a massive abuse of power, first by trying to recruit assistance for unconnected crimes by bringing charges, and secondly by heaping charges on the guy, not because he wouldn't give up his accomplices but out of vindictiveness because he wouldn't work for them against Mexican drug cartels. In a word, madness.