Wrapping Up The Pagans Pleas

March 26, 2012

All Posts, News

The remaining two defendants in the Pagans racketeering case titled U.S. v. Barbeito et al. took plea deals last week in Charleston, West Virginia. The men were Richard Timothy “Lucky” Weaver and Elmer Luke “Tramp” Moore.

Weaver pled guilty to one count of “conspiracy” charged in a superseding indictment in this case filed in February 2010. The government had alleged that the Pagans Motorcycle Club was criminal conspiracy and that Weaver’s part in that conspiracy was to sometimes provide armed security for former Pagan’s National Vice-President Floyd Moore. The act was illegal because Moore was a convicted felon.

Floyd Moore, who was also charged in the case, is now serving a five-year-long sentence for racketeering.

Why Deal Now

Weaver’s lawyer, Deirdre Purdy, urged Weaver to take the plea because “In the end it was clear the judge believed that being a member of the Pagans was equivalent to being a member of a conspiracy.” The trial judge was Thomas E. Johnston.

Both Weaver and Elmer Moore (who is Floyd Moore’s son) were jeopardized by additional racketeering charges. The charges had been dismissed but both Purdy and Elmer Moore’s lawyer, Carl James Roncaglione, Jr., feared that Judge Johnston would reinstate those dismissed counts.

As was previously reported Weaver was sentenced last Friday to three years of unsupervised probation and he is now a free man.

Elmer Moore’s Deal

On the same day Elmer Moore pled guilty to one count of being an “unlawful drug user in possession of a firearm.” One interesting clause in Moore’s plea deal is blatantly designed to frustrate journalists who might seek Moore’s cooperation in investigating this bogus and contrived Pagans prosecution.

The clause, entitled “Waiver of FOIA and Privacy Rights,” requires that “Moore knowingly and voluntarily waive all rights, whether asserted directly or by a representative, to request or receive from any department or agency of the United States any records pertaining to the investigation or prosecution of this case, including without any limitation any records that may be sought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, or the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, following final disposition.” The clause hints at how much the prosecution has to hide in this case. It also suggests the extent to which both the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Department of Justice fear impartial public scrutiny.

All existing and previously dismissed charges against Elmer Moore will be permanently dismissed. The agreement also specifies that Moore will face no more than three years in prison. Depending on the recommendations of a final presentencing report, Elmer Moore will probably receive a sentence similar to Weaver’s.

Elmer Moore’s sentencing is scheduled for 10 a.m. on July 11 in Charleston.

 

Share
, , , ,

32 Responses to “Wrapping Up The Pagans Pleas”

  1. RIBO make money Says:

    The most beautiful gift we can give each other is the truth. -Anonymous

  2. Glenn S. Says:

    Observer, thank you for the compliment, but its damn rare for felons to be admitted to the bar, and I’m a felon so many times over that I can’t remember them all without thinking about it. I work on industrial machinary for a living, these days, and I’ve gotten good at it. I’m the senior technician in the maintenance department in a factory on the second shift, am about halfway to an engineering degree, and I make enough money to keep myself on a motorcycle and pay the bills, with a little left over. It pays more than a paralegal makes, I checked. I do Narcotics Anonymous, still, after 15 years clean, because I believe in it. I have a wife that wants more of me than I have to give, and if I’m going to make any new commitments in the forseeable future it would be to join a serious motorcycle club. Life is full.

    My first wife died of liver failure related to long term substance abuse in 1998, and I partly blame the people at Vocational Rehabilitation, who told her that if she earned a degree in elementery education, she’d be able to get a teaching certificate and get herself hired teaching, despite the fact that she was convicted of embezzlement when she was 19. Although she got the degree and came up with a teaching technique for dyslesic children that got her in Who’s Who for a minute, no school system would hire her and it broke her spirit. RIP Carol Durham Sheldon, 1958-1998. At her funeral, there were teenagers there who told me that she tutored them and taught them to read after the system had given up on them.

    The system doesn’t allow anyone who has broken its rules to influence it from within, if they can help it. High acheivers are not so much valued as obeidient sheep. Possibly, I could find a state bar association that admits felons under certain circumstances, but I would have to pretend to be contrite to the point that I’d have trouble looking at myself in the mirror. Society got its pound of flesh from me, and still refuses to mark the debt paid. I’ll not pretend that I still owe society anything.

    But my biggest regret is not doing law school when I was age appropriate. But then again, the life experiences that would have made me a good lawyer have barred me from the profession. I’ll be 53 next week, and I guess I’ll continue to play the hand I’ve been dealt. All things considered, its a pretty good hand, and I’m not willing to throw it back. From time to time, the opportunity presents itself for me to look over the shoulder of an attorney representing a friend or (more often) a friend’s son or some kid in Narcotics Anonymous and advise as to whether or not the lawyer is doing his best and giving good advice (NO, I once said. “Do not plead guilty of conspiracy to murder just because you happened to be at a party when something happened. You had no idea what your acquaintence was going to do, and didn’t you say you were looking in the other direction when it happened?” Kid followed my advice instead of his lawyer’s and charges were dismissed right before jury selection.) It also amazes me that a lot of lawyers seem unaware of SC v. Ballenger, which states, in the pertinant part, that mere presence (at a location where there is contraband) does not prove posession. So maybe I get to do a little good.

  3. observer Says:

    Glenn: Hurry up and get your ass into law school. You’re not getting any younger. You obviously like the game enough to understand it. You’d probably make an awesome defense attorney. I once heard “the one who cares the most wins.” Hard to imagine any prosecutor caring more than you, unless he was completely nuts, and if that were the case, I think you’d smell the opportunity to let it all hang out yourself. You’ve got time, and opportunity, one way or the other, to do it, part time, night/online school, grants, etc. Thing is, it only works if you want it, and right now that’s just my idea. If it’s your idea too, that’s the first step. Your real-life experience already makes the next step easier. Pardon me for butting into your life like this. I mean well.

  4. Glenn S. Says:

    I’ve heard of a defendant representing himself but asking the judge to appoint counsel for legal advice, in essence having the lawyer research case law and advise regarding criminal procedure and statuatory law but arguing the case himself. I’ve never seen it, just heard of it happening. I might try that if I ever run afoul of the law again and am stuck in jail with limited use of the law library and no typewriter. Use the lawyer to do some of the footwork and paperwork for my review and editing, and state my own case, if its a fact based case. If its a law based case, I’ll let the public defender fuck it up and do a pro se post conviction relief petition (if state) or an appeal if federal. Questions of law are more fairly decided at higher levels, at least in my home state.

  5. BadMagic Says:

    “He cannot argue ineffective assistance of counsel.” Why not? Wouldn’t it be obvious at that point? I’m only half way kidding about that…. Seriously, what if you ~did~ have a lawyer. Although all they would do is guide you to do the things they couldn’t because of their association with the bar. I suppose that circumstance itself is probably not allowed, or punishable if they find out. Maybe a really, really good legal secretary.

    My last case the lawyer did the talking. He did what I asked though. He at all times believed we couldn’t win. I refused to believe that and found the applicable case law from all the resources his firm provided me. And then he charged me for the experience and left the firm.

    The biggest benefit I’ve found is learning how they qualify the charges with ‘expert’ testimony. You need to bring to the table an equal amount of testimony to at least level the playing field. Hopefully you never talked to anyone about anything previously, or a level field may not be possible.

    B-)

  6. Glenn S. Says:

    One can certainly understand why a defendant would rather represent himself than relinquish control to someone who might, or might not, have his best interests at heart and might, or might not, posess the necessary skill to argue his case successfully. Win or lose, at the end of the day the lawyer gets to go home and he generally gets paid either way. But there’s more fairness and justice to be found at the post conviction stage. Trial judges are often former prosecutors, appointed or elected because of the likelyhood that they will see themselves as soldiers in the war on crime. They never lose their jobs for treating a defendant unfairly, but being perceived as too lenient will cost them re-appointment or re-election. At the federal level, they’re generally appointed because they are tough on crime, true believers.

  7. rollinnorth Says:

    “There is a popular impression, for which there is a good deal to be said, that a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for his client.”
    [1911 British Weekly 21 Dec. 386]

    Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/a-man-who-is-his-own-lawyer-has-a-fool-for-his-client#ixzz1r4k0qqbK

  8. Glenn S. Says:

    Bad Magic, the #1 problem for a pro se defendant is that he loses certain opportunities during the post-conviction stage. He cannot argue ineffective assistance of counsel.

  9. RVN69 Says:

    Thanks Shyster, guess I already knew the answer but was hoping it would be something else.

    Omnes relinquite spes o vos intrantes

  10. Shyster Says:

    RVN69,

    It’s my understanding that one can contractually sign their rights away via criminal plea bargain. For example, one can agree to “search and seizure conditions” of probation on a non drug related case which bars the probationer during the period of probation from exercising his 4th Amendment Rights when confronted by a peace officer.

    So to answer your question my friend, it is my opinion that the stipulated waiver entered into by these men is binding and legal.

    God bless what’s left of the free world. F E.
    Shyster

  11. RVN69 Says:

    Shyster,
    We know the feds have become way too powerful when they can trample the rights of a popular sitting US Senator with impunity. It certainly doesn’t bode well for us less well know individuals.

    Can or will you give me your opinion as to this waiver the men in this trial were coerced into signing? Is it at all possibe that this is a step too far to require defendants to waive the option of have a third party review their case?

    “The clause, entitled “Waiver of FOIA and Privacy Rights,” requires that “Moore knowingly and voluntarily waive all rights, whether asserted directly or by a representative, to request or receive from any department or agency of the United States any records pertaining to the investigation or prosecution of this case, including without any limitation any records that may be sought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, or the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, following final disposition.” The clause hints at how much the prosecution has to hide in this case. It also suggests the extent to which both the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Department of Justice fear impartial public scrutiny”

    Omnes relinquite spes o vos intrantes

  12. sled tramp Says:

    Shyster-
    I was raised by a Federal
    Attorney.Two of his favorite sayings were,”Why ruin a good thing with legalities” and “The F.B.I. is what happens when you give a tommy gun to a C.P.A.”
    If nothing else,I’m sure years of courtrooms have shown you one has to have an appreciation of the absurdity of life.I guess the reason Joe Citizen can’t comprehend the realities of our so called “justice system” is that despite years of being saturated by our filtered,exploitive the sky is falling media,ya can’t make this shit up.It’s too surreal.

  13. BadMagic Says:

    In my personal experience, I’ve found it to be almost an advantage anymore to represent yourself Pro Se. I know a man who represents himself has a fool for a client. That being said, it seems there is so much “scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” going on with the lawyers and court systems, that a Pro Se defense has an advantage in that you don’t have to adhere to the buddy system and can’t really get remanded. If you are innocent, and have had your rights violated, you should be able to represent yourself and show reasonable doubt. After all, it is up to a jury of your peers, right? So theoretically, you should be able to use terms and understandings on par with them instead of all the legalese and instructions used to tie their hands. On my last case, the law firm wanted 2k retainer to dispute the cops testimony. They wanted 10k to question the dog. WTF???? That is because they have invested so much training and proof of qualification that you need 10k worth of resources to dispute their evidence.

    If prose is a style of speaking and or writing in its ordinary form, without metrical structure. And Pro Se means advocating on one’s own behalf before a court, rather than being represented by a lawyer. Then is ‘prose’ prose for Pro Se?

    B-|

  14. Shyster Says:

    … Unequivocally shows him to be the perp, he confesses, has two prior strikes, and used a gun during the crime. Guess what, Uncle Tommy don’t like it when his lawyer tells him he is looking at 25 to life. Uncle Tommy can’t understand why his lawyer is fucking him. Uncle Tommy blames everyone but himself. Uncle Tommy wants Community Service. He “ain’t trying to go back to prison over some bullshit.”

    Like Barreta said, “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.”

    Fuck everybody.

    Shyster

  15. Shyster Says:

    Glenn S. and Rebel,

    Maybe I turn a blind eye to what is clearly eating away at me from the inside out. I despise “dump truck” lawyers who fuck over their clients. It happens. Often. I suppose all I ask is that we all not be labeled with such a broad generalizing brush stroke as “working” with the persecution and cross dressers on the bench. There are many of us who have been remanded for zealously advocating for our clients …. Many times.

    I was given a “handle” by the staff of a particular court here in El Lay when I was appointed counsel. It was “public rear ender.” This term of endearment, I later learned, was due to the fact that someone was gonna get fucked (my client excepted) when I was appointed. Those were the good old days.

    I did not feel slighted at all and I apologize if I offended you.

    The pigs have the upper hand. They fabricate evidence, reasonable suspicion for a vehicle stop, probable cause for a search, justification for a pat down, etc. Sometimes they don’t. Many will claim that the majority of the time the cop does things by the book. I don’t know what the percentages are. I do know that I have caught many cops in blatant lies on the witness stand. Lies that resulted in the felony arrests of many citizens. I know of specific cops who have stolen guns from documented gang members, cops who have planted baggies of weed to justify their illegal searches, cops who would stick their fingers up the rectum of young black men they were searching! True story! Yeah, it’s all fucked up.

    The 4th Amendment is damn near abolished. The fucken Patriot Act is alive and kicking and will be for many many years. Shit, I can’t even light a firecracker on my street on the 4th of July without the local PD citing me for my sins.

    Shit is fucked up! I should start smoking weed to relieve this fucken stress. What can a defense lawyer do when Uncle Tommy robs a liquor store, gets caught with the proceeds of his work including the lottery tickets he helped himself to on the way out, the surveillance video clearly and unequi

  16. Rebel Says:

    Dear Shyster,

    I was hardly talking about you.

    I also might, maybe have a better picture accross the nation than you do. Maybe it is an unfair impression but I see many more cases than I have time to write about. I might have just been looking at a transcript of a sealed evidence hearing when I wrote that. I am going through the records of one notorious case at the moment and I found that transcript disturbing. The opposing councel were clearly more interested in preserving their personal relationship with each other than in contesting the truth. The defendant was prosecuted by a police agency that has a 100 percent conviction rate. Perfect conviction rate. I find convictions rates in the high 90s to be very disturbing. I asked a guy yesterday about this case, “What do you think North Korea bats?” What was Joe Stalin’s conviction rate? What is the point of having a lawyer if your lawyer, your prosecutor, your accusers and the judge all agree that you are guilty and mostly, simply negotiate what your punishment will be? Where is the advocacy in that? I am also aware of how often defendants are told to take the plea even though they are clearly, provably innocent. I also correspond with a fair number of guys who are locked up. They all have stories. One guy I owe about four letters to has been locked up for a year and a half on a bullshit charge, is on his second lawyer and hasn’t had a bail hearing yet.

    You and I have talked. I am definitely not talking about you. All due respect. No offense intended. I know you stand up for your clients. Many of your esteemed brethren in the federal court system really deserve to be roughed up a little.

    Enjoy your weekend,

    Rebel

  17. Glenn S. Says:

    Shyster, the best description I’ve heard about the relationships between prosecutors and government paid defense attorneys was a comparison with professional wrestlers: They put on a good show, but their #1 priority is to not hurt one another.

  18. Shyster Says:

    Rebel,

    “Most Federal defenders …. Employment is dependent on how well they get along with the Judges and prosecutors.”

    100% false. C’mon Rebel, not you too. You of all People cannot truly believe that.

    Shyster

  19. Rebel Says:

    Dear RVN69,

    The feds do this to everybody. It is possible that somebody who never knew about this common practice might file a motion to vacate his conviction. But first, his defense counsel will have to file a motion complaining that the Brady/Giglio evidence (they call it that after a couple of court rulings) was intentionally withheld by the prosecution. Most of these guys are defended by federal defenders. Most federal defenders get paid whether they win or lose and their continued employment is dependent on how well they get along with the judges and prosecutors.

    Rebel

  20. RVN69 Says:

    Rebel,
    One last thing, both prosecutors are still employed by the Justice Dept. and have not been disciplined even though an Appeals Court judge made the same accusations over a year ago.

    Omnes relinquite spes o vos intrantes.

  21. Hose-a 1% Says:

    When they finish destroying peoples lives they leave the court house have a drink together and go play golf.I guess after that they suck each others dicks.F.T.F.
    Hose-a 1%er PAGAN’S M.C.retired

  22. RVN69 Says:

    Rebel,
    I listened to a radio report of this investigation, it said that in addition to the information above, the prosecutors knowingly allowed evidence of Stevens guilt to be introduced that they knew was false.

    I’m not at all surprised except for the fact that they employed the same tactics they use against us on a senior sitting US Senator.

    I would imagine the only possible positive of this would be the very slim chance that some biker somewhere may have grounds for appeal, however unlikely that is.

    What a game, and to think I volunteered for this.

    Welcome Home.

    God Bless us and all those like us since 1775.

  23. Rebel Says:

    Dear RVN69,

    Prosecutors withhold evidence of actual innocense in practically every case where the accused is actually innocent. There are no penalties for doing that until after the innocent man is sentenced. The penalties can only be imposed after a hearing that can only be called after a formal complaint by the defense lawyer. Defense lawyers never file these complaints against prosecutors so the issue only came up in the Stephens case because the innocent man happened to be a US Senator. Usually, the penalty against the prosecutor is a letter of reprimand.

    Prosecutors are not interested in truth. Prosecutors chase convictions like kittens chase butterflys. It is in their natures.

    The news in this story is that the feds even pull this shit on United States Senators — not that virtually every federal prosecutor pulls this shit. Trust me, the New York Times does not give a flying fuck when it happens to just another asshole.

    A slightly more fool proof method is sometimes practiced in biker racketeering cases investigated by the ATF. Racketeering “predicates” in these cases are often incidents investigated by local authorities but never prosecuted. An ATF case agent can then ask friendly, local cops to “lose” the investigative reports that prove that the accused was actually innocent. Then the innocent man can be federally prosecuted for the state crime which he clearly never committed. If by some chance his federal defender actually looks for the local records he will never find them. Technically, that is evidence tampering but the federal defender never looks and even if he did it is too much trouble for the defender to prove there was tampering. And, the federal prosecutor has absolutely nothing to do with any of it. So even if somebody catches on he will remain innocent.

    It is all in the game, yo.

    Welcome home,
    Rebel

  24. RVN69 Says:

    “A special counsel testified Wednesday that overzealous U.S. prosecutors were so intent on winning a corruption case against the late Sen. Ted Stevens that they intentionally withheld information they were obligated to give the defense”

    “But committee members said they were just as concerned for all defendants who are convicted because of wayward prosecutors who break the rules, and suggested a law may be necessary to remedy the problem”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/28/counsel-prosecutors-overzealous-in-stevens-case/#ixzz1qRKRrtC2

    Given that these lowlife scum sucking pieces of shit were ready, willing and able to do this to a sitting US Senator of his stature, is it any wonder they get away with the bullshit they pull on us? Now we know why they coerced the ability to agree to an FOIA request from these men, how better to cover their tracks.

    FTF, FTP

    “Omnes relinquite spes, o vos intrantes”.

  25. Glenn S. Says:

    The government’s strategy in its goal of more control over people seems a lot like the native Americans’ practice of counting coup. “Tag”, they say, accusing us of some minor violation of a petty law that carries draconian punishment, and you are a convicted felon once boxed in a corner where the only way out is a guilty plea. Our right to bear arms is gone. Our right to vote in most jurisdictions, obtain professional certifications and licenses, hold public office, all gone. We are the new nigger in this brave new world. And the rights we still enjoy, even as a convicted felon, are subject to loss any time some politician introduces some legislation aimed at getting “tough on crime”. In some jurisdictions, politicians propose to expand sex offender type registries to include methamphetimine offenders. Discrimination against convicted felons in the workplace is legal and encouraged by the government. One can assume that many Americans are on no-fly lists because of felon status, and it seems likely that the list will eventually include most felons. Repeat offenses, even the most petty ones, subject the American to life without parole under two and three strikes laws.

    As far as the waiver of the right to seek information under FOI, I’m wondering what there is that was not revealed to Purdy and Roncaglione under discovery. As I understand the discovery process, everything that might be available under FOI should have already been revealed. Any fair and neutral judge should ask that question, rather than allow that element of the plea bargain to pass unchallenged.

  26. IrishDragon Says:

    Rebel,

    Outbad is great and I will be buying more copies for friends and family.

    We as a people really need to wake the fuck up. This is a perfect example of how all of or rights are being taken away. There starting with MC’s(because they have already been made the badguys/scapegoats) to make it seem legitamite. Next it will be the average everyday sheeple. Then they will be bitching and moaning, but it will be too late. I feel ashamed of how our country has fallen so far from the original plan that our ancestors fought and died for.

    IrishDragon

  27. RVN69 Says:

    Secret Police, sealed indictments, now coerced waiver of rights to have anyone independantly review the records. I have to wonder if the pressure from Fast & Furious, and perhaps books like Rebels have caused them to rethink their strategy. Hopefully someone with enough money and respect for the Bill of Rights will challenge this.

    History interests me, I read frequently and believe me, the KGB,GRU, Stasi, Gestapo, all the famous boogymen would have to take lessons from the ATF when it comes to fabricating crimes and punishment.

    Repects to the PMC and congratulations to Richard Weaver and Elmer Moore on getting back to their lives.

    “Wow that would be a great reality show maybe the dimwit from SOA could put it together and get them to sign on to test their “skills”. Maybe something along the lines of the the movie Hunger Games would be cool with me.

    VFFV LVDV
    Viva Los Vagos”

    That would be cool, or any of those movies about somebody being released on a deserted island to be hunted, Koz and company are dropped on a deserted island and we get to hunt them, clubs that have been directly persecuted go first, then if anyone is left we get to take turns.

    Omnes Relinquite Spes, Ovds Intrantes

  28. AVAGOVFFV Says:

    Secret Police Is exactly right! Bullshit Legal Wrangling!

    ”requires that “Mr. Moore knowingly and voluntarily waive all rights, whether asserted directly or by a representative, to request or receive from any department or agency of the United States any records pertaining to the investigation or prosecution of this case, including without any limitation any records that may be sought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, or the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, following final disposition.”

    This is another attack on the American way of life, another piece of freedom is now gone and will never be reversed due immoral and corrupt agents,judges and prosecutors.

    The ATF agents in these motorcycle Club cases and others that lie, conspire and knowingly mislead the court need to found out then arrested and sent to prison.

    With luck and a little time hopefully Ciccone, Koz, Car and a few others will share that fate let’s see how they would fare out on the yard. After all I’d really like to see Koz get his wish to die the way he envisions.

    Wow that would be a great reality show maybe the dimwit from SOA could put it together and get them to sign on to test their “skills”. Maybe something along the lines of the the movie Hunger Games would be cool with me.

    VFFV LVDV
    Viva Los Vagos

  29. anon Says:

    Dear Rebel,

    This is more disappointing to hear than it should be.

    I’ve been reading quite a bit about the plea bargaining system we have recently, including some nice facts mentioned by you and some commenters. The move from an adversarial system of justice (prosecution versus defense) to an administrative guilty-once-indicted system of plea bargaining, with admissions of guilt and waivers of constitutional rights, is disturbing to say the least.

    I get the “conspiracy theory shit” complaint, but it comes from people who refuse to dig below the surface. Look at COINTELPRO against the left and the sedition trials against the right. Those aren’t conspiracy; they’re fact. Overcoming that bias is hard, if not impossible, for most normal people.

    This case sounds like nothing more than an enhancement of the administrative system of justice we have. But, in all fairness, I have to say that I can’t imagine the current administration is less secretive than the last overall, though they may be so in MC cases.

    That old email I sent you about law school advice… maybe it’s time to respond! I may be happy to do some first amendment filings if I go down that road.

  30. Rebel Says:

    Dear Anon,

    Okay…. FOIA requests are routinely denied for the “ongoing investigation” exception. But there are ways to get around that. Sometimes, a hack of low normal intelligence might get around this by requesting that some person might want to request his own records because they are much more likely to be surrendered. FOIA requests, in general, were much more likely to be granted during the last Bush Administration than they are now under the Obama Administration. At present, the way to get a FOIA request granted is to have the First Amendment lawyer you keep on retainer sue the bastards. I wish I had a First Amendment lawyer on retainer.

    I mention it in this case because it is the first time I have ever seen a “no FOIA request” clause in a plea deal.

    Sales of Out Bad are dropping like a stone but while it was selling moderately well I would get the occassional reader who would take time to tell me that I write “conspiracy theory shit.” I am pretty frank about saying that I think the ATF is the “American secret police.” I know putting it like that turns off many reasopnable and moderate people. I think paragraph (or clause or whatever it is) 13 in this plea deal kind of hints at why I think that. And, it pisses me off. So I mentioned it in the story.

    The short answer is, yeah I can write FOIA requests in the same way I can write letters to Santa. And any kids who might ever stumble over this should know I believe in Santa. I just don’t believe in FOIA. I believe in FOIA a little less now than I did last week.

    Rebel

  31. anon Says:

    But a third-party journalist under the nom-de-guerre “The Aging Rebel” can still request these files under FOIA, right?

    It also looks like 552b is the relevant portion of the Privacy Act, not 552a, but that’s irrelevant since the waiver is “Moore knowingly and voluntarily waive all rights, whether asserted directly or by a representative, to request or receive from any department or agency of the United States any records pertaining to the investigation or prosecution of this case, including without any limitation any records that may be sought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, or the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, following final disposition.”

  32. anon Says:

    But a third-party journalist under the nom-de-guerre “The Aging Rebel” can still request these files under FOIA, right?

    It also looks like 552b is the relevant portion of the Privacy Act, not 552a, but that’s irrelevant since the waiver is “including but not limited to.”

Leave a Reply