I have been doing a lousy job on the site recently because I have been working on a book about Dave Burgess. You already know who Burgess is. If you don’t you can either google his name or search for his name on this site. There remains a little controversy about the man. There is some controversy here because Burgess was a Hells Angel. He always wanted to be a Hells Angel. And not everybody loves the Angels.
I think Dave Burgess is more important than club politics. If a cabal of secret police can do what they did to Dave Burgess they can do that to any American. The people, the public at large, have a right to know that this is how their government has come to define the relationship between itself and the people. Burgess has said something like, if they can do this to me they can do this to anybody. And, in a society that so histrionically pays lip service to “freedom” and “democracy” this kind of conduct cannot go unchallenged.
I am not a fan of Edmund Burke and I think his most famous words have become a tired cliché. But it is a fact that “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” And, I think his less well known statement that, “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one” might explain why I think the Burgess case should be important to more than just Hells Angels.
I have been pulling several loose threads trying to find out who framed Burgess. I expected to run into the ATF. I did not. Frankly, I was disappointed. Writing this book would have been a much easier if I found Ciccone or Koz or Jimmy Packard or one of those psychos was mixed up in it.
An obvious candidate for the framing is an FBI task force based in Las Vegas that was reorganized shortly before Burgess was framed. A second candidate is the Department of Homeland Security and that one just astounded me when I stumbled onto that. The Department of Homeland Security! It is also very possible that the framing of Dave Burgess was a crime of opportunity that was imagined and realized entirely within the state of Wyoming. The Wyoming Department of Criminal Investigation’s Internet Crimes Against Children department had a 100 percent conviction rate during the years from 2005 through 2010. As I asked one very informed source, “How does this stack up against the conviction rate in North Korea, do you think?”
Inevitably, in all these child porn cases except Dave Burgess’, Wyoming DCI ICAC can offer an explanation as to how the porn got on any computer or piece of hardware. In Burgess’ case the child porn simply appeared. It had been loaded onto the hard drives in a highly organized fashion but none of it had ever been opened.
There is actual evidence that Burgess never looked at any of it and the logical inference is that Burgess never knew any of it was there – which happens to be what Burgess has said many times and is what everybody who knows the man thinks. There is also some indication that after Burgess was convicted the evidence that was employed to convict him was destroyed.
Burgess was accused of having between 60,000 and 85,000 images of child exploitation on his hard drives. None of this library was ever entered into evidence. It was simply testified about as what federal justice calls “evidence of other wrongs.” Around the time the DCI ICAC was discovering this hoard of filth, a Homeland Security Officer assigned to ICAC was testifying in another trial that the entire ICAC “library” of child pornography totalled only 50,000 images including videos.
Wyoming ICAC is an unusual institution. It is a federal program and it is almost entirely federally funded. When President Obama passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 most people thought the new law was intended to create new jobs by rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure. In Wyoming, a half million dollars of that money went to fund the salary of an additional ICAC cop for four years. That is how the President is rebuilding America. By guaranteeing the future salaries of cops who frame people for the most loathsome crimes.
To Write Or Not
In my opinion, there is quite a lot to the Burgess story that the public at large has a right to know. I can’t even begin to describe here how blatantly Burgess was framed. He was lynched because he was a Hells Angel and because he talked back. A friend of Dave Burgess’ described Dave as his “own worst enemy.” When authority said sit down Burgess usually stood up.
Burgess has, probably, one appeal left. The Supreme Court refused to consider his case in 2010. And understandably, there are some very informed sources who are afraid that I might screw up Dave’s last chance at appeal by revealing too much about what was done to the guy – or that I might betray some club business or something like that. So I am trying to be discrete.
But if I don’t write about Dave Burgess then who will? Matt Joyce? Julien Sher? Kerrie Droban? Nils Johnson-Shelton? For example, the transcript of Burgess’ trial is still sealed. Most of Burgess’ case is still sealed. It is not a case that any reporter with a voice loud enough to matter is likely to write about unless I write about it first.
As recently as six weeks ago I thought there was an outside possibility that Burgess might have had at least an interest in child porn. A possibility. Some of the discussion in still secret hearings (so I have never seen a transcript because I am a good citizen – but I do know a psychic in Dubai who is pretty good) is disgustingly graphic. I even talked to a couple of people with academic insight into the personal characteristics of men who look at child porn and of men who molest children.
I will tell you this now with absolute certainty and without even a shadow of a doubt in my mind: David Burgess was framed.