Top Navigation  
U.S. Flag waving
Office Hours Momday - Friday  8 am - 5 pm Pacific 1-800-835-2418
Facebook   YouTube   Twitter

 Home Page
 Current Issue
 Article Index
 Author Index
 Previous Issues
 Print Display Ads
 Print Classifieds
 Free Stuff
 Home Energy

General Store
 Ordering Info
 Kindle Subscriptions
 Kindle Publications
 Back Issues
 Help Yourself
 All Specials
 Classified Ad

 Web Site Ads
 Magazine Ads

BHM Blogs
 Ask Jackie Clay
 Massad Ayoob
 Claire Wolfe
 Where We Live
 Dave on Twitter
Retired Blogs
 Behind The Scenes
 Oliver Del Signore
 David Lee
 James Kash
 Energy Questions

Quick Links
 Home Energy Info
 Jackie Clay
 Ask Jackie Online
 Dave Duffy
 Massad Ayoob
 John Silveira
 Claire Wolfe

Forum / Chat
 Forum/Chat Info
 Enter Forum
 Lost Password

More Features
 Contact Us/
 Change of Address
 Write For BHM
 Meet The Staff
 Meet The Authors
 Disclaimer and
 Privacy Policy

Retired Features
 Country Moments
 Radio Show

Link to BHM

Living Freedom by Claire Wolfe. Musings about personal freedom and finding it within ourselves.

Want to Comment on a blog post? Look for and click on the blue No Comments or # Comments at the end of each post.

Claire Wolfe

The silence of the non-consenting

Monday, February 6th, 2012

Most likely you haven’t been following the FBI’s so-called “African Sting” case. It’s a huge, expensive operation, but so obscure and technically complex that nobody but dedicated fiskers of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) pays much attention to it.

I know about the case via Rich Lucibella, who knows and likes one of the defendants. At his instigation I wrote an article about it for S.W.A.T. a year or so ago.

I don’t believe the article is online, but I can sum the case up in a couple of lines: The fibbies entrapped a bunch of small business people into paying bribes (which the feds called “commissions”) to a supposed representative of the government of Gabon in hopes of getting business. Then they pounced on them, accusing them of all manner of crimes, including the ever-popular “conspiracy.” For the last several years, these businessperson-victims have been forced to fight for their assets, their reputations, and their freedom.

Now, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the business these folks do. All of them chose to get into the government-contracting racket. On top of that, some used their status as minorities to get special consideration from the fedgov.

They went into a dirty business with eyes wide open.

Still, it’s a joy to watch the predictable thing occurring: two years after the initial busts, the government case is collapsing.

This morning an FCPA-watching website printed an insider’s look at jury deliberations in the most recent trial. Among other things, the jury foreperson wrote (emphasis mine):

As noted above, a number of jurors were troubled by the nature of the FBI sting operation. Specifically, some seemed unwilling to convict on the basis of vague language (e.g., “commission” instead of “bribe”) and where the defendants had not sought out the deal. These jurors were largely not participatory in the deliberations and when specifically called upon for their views would typically voice agreement with views expressed by some other juror voting “Not Guilty.” But enough small comments through the course of deliberations lead me to believe that their underlying view was that the defendants had acted in good faith and the FBI/DOJ in bad faith. Along the same lines, more than one juror voiced concern that it would be unjust for the defendants in this case to be convicted when the government relied so heavily on Mr. Bistrong [an informant/instigator of the sting] who freely admitted on the stand more illegal acts than the entire group of defendants was accused of, yet was able to plead to only one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA.

So here we have jury nullification in brilliant action. Not the bold agitation of a Julian Heicklen (though bless him and his great courage). Not an overt FIJA-based challenge (though bless FIJA and their educational efforts). Just the quietest people on the jury sitting there thinking, “No, even if the defendants actually did something wrong, the government did worse.”

7 Responses to “The silence of the non-consenting”

  1. Kent McManigal Says:

    This may become more common as the government gets more ridiculous.

  2. Claire Says:

    The government can get even more ridiculous? OMG.

  3. Claire Says:

    One of the defendants also had connections to the Secret Service and had served bravely in Vietnam. Reportedly, on the day his attorney presented closing arguments, 70 Secret Service agents showed up, occupied all the available seats in the courtroom, and refused to yield them even to the highest DoJ mucky-mucks.

  4. EN Says:

    Good for them! It seems to me that most federal cases collapse when they are fighting businesses, but their real intention isn’t to win outright, but get enough plea bargains from business men trying not to go broke over legal fees.

  5. tired dog Says:

    Shades of Abscam…

  6. Jim B. Says:

    “The government can get even more ridiculous? OMG.”

    Never forget one of Heinlein’s Maxim:

    “Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.”

    After all, we let those in government have power over us. Governments are the ultimate symbol of Human Stupidity.

  7. Gus S. Calabrese Says:

    I did this when I was on juries and I will never be allowed on a jury again. The jury pool is tracked for this…….. 99guspuppet



Copyright © 1998 - Present by Backwoods Home Magazine. All Rights Reserved.