3 April 1999
Source: First six items hardcopy postmarked Seattle, WA, 12 March 1999; seventh item postmarked Seattle, WA, 22 March 1999.

See related files: http://jya.com/cejfiles.htm

1. Court of Public Opinion

2. Court of Public Opinion

3. Notes From Cafe Gulag

4. Proposed Plea Agreement

5. DoJ Warning Letter

6. Superseding Indictment

7. Pro Se Motion

[Undated Newsletter]

### COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (PLAINTIFF)

V.

WE THE PEOPLE AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS (DEFENDANTS)

To whom it may concern,

This is a "True" story of a man and his fight to retain his First Amendment right to Free Speech. Remember that if he should lose his right to Free Speech, how long do you think it will be until those same rights are taken away from every Americas citizen?

Let me quote some of the evidence being used to charge Carl Edward Johnson. These are some of the opinions put out over the InterNet by Carl Edward Johnson:

> OFFICIAL "PHYSICAL" DEATH THREAT!!!

> The pen is mightier than the sword. I prefer to wage my "war to the death" against those who would stomp on my basic human rights "in the interests of National Security" with my electronic pen, on the InterNet, using encryption when I have reason to fear persecution by my own government.

> Let's see if I have this right...

> The U.S. government needs to destroy the right to Free Speech and the right to Privacy of it's own citizens in order to infringe upon the human rights of the governments and citizens of other countries? Countries which already have strong encryption? Countries like Red China, which is currently engaged in encryption research with an American company who got permission to export much more diverse encryption material (after making a huge campaign donation to the Whitehouse) than professer Bernstein will ever likely share with others.

> I will continue to express my thoughts through the words I send electronically over the InterNet, both publically and privately. I will fight to the bandwidth death against anyone who wants to deny me my right to express my opinions and access the opinions of those who also wish to express their own opinions and share their true thoughts with their fellow humans.

Now as you can clearly see, this is a First Amendment "Freedom of Speech" issue. What they are doing to Carl Edward Johnson is not only in violation of the United States Constitution but is also morally unjust. Enclosed you will find copies of exhibits 9 and 10 and a statement of what has happened to Mr. Johnson since he has been incarcerated, that was penned by myself and Mr. Johnson. I hope that you will find this situation both newsworthy and outrageous.

> Respectfully,

> [Signature]

> Dale L. Thompson # 28318-086
> FDC Sea-Tac
> P.O. Box 68976
> Seattle Wa. 98168
> (253) 870-5700

### COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION

SEATAC NUTLY NEWS

(A Subsiduary of the BOP-Till-They- Drop Citizen Re-Orientation Centers Of America.)

[SeaTac, Washington - December 7, 1999]

IN A STUNNING ANNOUNCEMENT WHICH CAME IN THE middle of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SON OF GOMEZ, Assistant United States Attorney Robb London revealed that the Defendant had signed a Plea Agreement wherein he would give up the right to HearSee&Speak the Truth (TM), in return for assurances that Janet Reno only wants Austria, and has no intention of invading Poland.

> "This was not the meeting he had pictured; he would not accept it. Once more he clutched at his death-line, and at once the Tragedian spoke." -C.S.Lewis, The Great Divorce

In the case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CARL EDWARD JOHNSON (CR-98-5393RJB), the Prosecutor and the Public Defender have formed a Tag-Team to ensure that the Defendant, twelve days from trial, has had neither the benefit of a valid plea offer, nor an opportunity to review the evidence against him.

After a year and a half of investigation, and six and a half months after Johnson's arrest and incarceration, the Prosecutor, Robb London, and Public Defender, Gene Grantham, waited until two and a half weeks before trial date to spring a now-or-never Plea Agreement on the Defendant, Johnson, with the offer of immediate release in return for copping a plea, and threats of copious additional charges (and surprise news of an additional indictment) as punishment for maintaining his innocence.

Despite requests by the Defendant to be provided with a copy of the Plea Agreement, as well as with copies of evidence obtained through discovery weeks before by the Public Defender, in order to make an informed and rational decision, Johnson did not receive a copy of the Plea Agreement until three days after the two-day deadline given by London, and has yet to receive a copy of the evidence that he needs in order to prepare for a trial that is less than two weeks away.

In the face of a last minute threat sent to Johnson, by London via Grantham, on the Deadliine Date, promising the imprisoned Defendant a sentence of 10-16 years (instead of Time Served), Johnson quoted Robert M. LaFollette, Sr., saying,

> "Let no man think that we can deny civil liberty to others and retain it for ourselves. When zealous agents of the government arrest suspected 'radicals' without warrant, hold them without prompt trial, deny them access to counsel and admission of bail ... we have shorn the Bill of Rights of its sanctity as a shield to every American citizen." [Spin EditWhore's Note: The above is what Mr. Johnson meant to say. What he actually said was, "Fuck These Morons!"]

> "Prosecution does not represent an entity whose interests include winning at all costs; prosecutor's client is society, which seeks justice, not victory." US v. Doe, 860 F2d (lst Cir. 1988)

Prosecutor London's Original Plea Deal offered Defendant Johnson a release from prison (Time Served), in return for a guilty plea, explaining that he had sympathy for the Defendant's mental disabilities and felt that Johnson was not a danger to others ("not a trigger-man"), yet the Prosecutor had no compunction about working the Original Plea agreement in a manner that left no doubt that the Ante would be raised to an Astronomical amount of hard prison time, should the Defendant maintain his innocence.

Despite the fact that the Plea Agreement was 'Sanitized' by the Prosecutor and the Public Defender prior to a Plea Hearing that had been pre-arranged (without allowing the Defendant the time or information needed to make an informed, well-considered decision), in the face of further resistance by the Defendant to being railroaded into a hasty acceptance of a Government Constructed Plea Bargain, the Prosecutor had the Public Defender hand-carry an enhanced summary of the threats in the Original Plea Bargain -- promising Johnson two decades, or more, of imprisonment, should the Defendant continue to insist on his right to innocence and a fair trial.

In spite of Johnson's insistence on attending court, in order to see the Judge, he was led to an empty courtroom, only to be dismissed by an unintroduced woman who picked up a phone and announced, "No plea agreement."

The imminently appearing unalterable trial date magically vaporized a few days later when Federal Public Defender Grantham scheduled a hearing for a continuance of several months and Prosecutor London graciously assented.

Judge Bryan, however, granted the Defendant's wish to receive aspeedy trial on the date previously scheduled, but taking pains to point out that the Federal Public Defender, not having prepared in the previous six weeks, would be hard pressed to mount an effective defense in the short time available. It is unimaginable that the prosecutor could have failed to understand, scant days previously, that the Federal Public Defender was unprepared for trial and would be seeking a continuance, yet he had no qualms about using the illusion of the pressure of an imminent trial to attempt to coerce the Defendant into making a hasty, ill-formed decision about a life-changing matter.

It is utterly impossible for the Federal Public Defender not to have known that he was unprepared for trial, and that he would be seeking a continuance of several months, yet he allowed his Client to be subjected to threats and coercion tied to a fictional deadline, while leaving the Defendant without the information he had requested which was pertinent to the issues he needed to consider in order to come to a sound decision in regard to his legal position and his future.

Basically, Grantham not only left his Client twisting in the wind of prosecutor London's heavy-handed tactics, but he actually helped to cement the Desperate Last Chance Deal Illusion by failing to acknowledge that he had no intention of proceeding at the trial date set by Judge Bryant in order to guarantee Defendant Johnson his right to a Speedy Trial.

> "If the government, police and prosecuters could always be trusted to do the right thing, there would have never been a need for the Bill of Rights." -Justice Leventhal US v. US District Court for the Central District of California 858 F2d 534 (9th Cir. 1988)

Federal Public Defenders and Defense Attorneys could be added to the above list.

Attorney Grantham sat back and twiddled his thumbs during the continuance hearing -- probably in an attempt to shake the dirt off of his own hands -- as prosecutor London played hard and fast with the facts in the face of Judge Bryan's suggestion that London's announced intention to seek a Human-Gus Summary Indictment so close to the trial date smacked of "punishment" for the Defendant, in retaliation for his not having accepted the plea agreement. (1)

Assistant United States Attorney London's claims before the court fly in the face of the fact that:

A. The Prosecutor and Public Defender were both present at the proffering of the Original plea agreement, when the Defendant clearly stated that, in order to be able to properly consider the offer, he would require a copy of the plea agreement, a copy of the evidence against him, and the time to study them and consult with others, before being able to make an informed decision.

B. At the time that the prosecutor and the Federal Public Defender were 'Santitizing' the original plea agreement, the prosecutor had to have known that the Federal Public Defender had not further conferred with his client, and could not have helped but known that Grantham could not honestly vouch for the fact that Johnson would agree to a new plea agreement not yet in existence, when he had never even been provided with a copy of the original plea agreement.

C. Since the Defendant has steadfastly maintained his innocence and the Federal Public Defender, Grantham, has not provided his client with any facts, information or evidence to contradict Johnson's understanding in regard to his legal standing, it would be unethical -- if not, in fact, illegal -- for the Federal Public Defender to advise his client to enter a plea of guilty, let alone for him to give false assurances to prosecutor London that would lead to the abridgement or to the circumvention of the Defendant Johnson's rights in regard to receiving not only a Speedy Trial, but an equitable and fair trial, as well.

> "Sunshine is the best disinfectant." -Louis Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice

There is no sunshine in Unit 4A, Cell 31, at the Federal Detention Center in SeaTac, Washington.

The 'window' of Cell 31 faces the cold, gray concrete cave which passes for a recreation yard for presumed innocent pre-trial prisoners.

Johnson can sit in the high-ceilinged concrete 'Yard' during the day and see -- twenty feet above him -- the dim rays of a sun that would be shining on him, had he simply folded his hand in the face of the enormous pressures upon him. Instead, he huddles with the other prisoners in the chill wind of a concrete cave, smoking a cigarette and wondering what lies ahead in the space of a few short days which will decide his fate for the next few decades.

After months of inadequate medical treatment for his physical and neurological disabilities; after spending over five of his six and a half months in prison in the Hole (isolation cell) as a result of being disabled; after being chained to a bed, in leg irons, 24 hours a day for weeks on end, Prisoner #05987-196 can only wait and wonder if, by the time he is taken to trial, a few days hence, on as yet undetermined charges, he will have an opportunity to view the evidence against him, and attempt to mount a defense.

> "The Germans made the victims complicit in their own deaths, a favorite Teutonic technique of the era, meant to degrade and imprint upon the victims the abject state of their servile condition.

> The Germans forced the victims to construct the gallows from which they would hang and to slip the nooses around their own necks." -Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners"

Today ... we have the Plea Bargain.

> "It is better to hang some feller, than no feller." -Charles Dickens, Bleak House

Now comes the Defendant...

### NOTES FROM CAFE GULAG

Lies The Prosecutor Told Me #327:

> "However, as you are aware, your client did not enter a guilty plea as anticipated."

TruthMonger #709 SEZ:

> Fucking Morons (TM) can 'anticipate' all they want, but without the Defendant having given even the slightest indication that HeOrSheOrIt was even seriously considering pleading guilty, then the only motivation for such anticipation on the part of the Legal Beagles involved. is to create Illusionary Grounds for postponing the trial date as a result of neither the Prosecution or the Public Defender being prepared for trial, having assumed that the Defendant, whether guilty or innocent, will nonetheless bow to the "legal threats and coercions" applied by both the Prosecutor and the Public Defender, in order to avoid having to put the Justice System through all of the bother of deciding the case in court, based on the evidence.

Lies The Prosecutor Told Me #8,496:

> "We are opposed to any continuances of this matter, because of the public's interest in a speedy trial."

TruthMonger #1 SEZ:

> Duuhhh...

> Then why did The Government (TM) kiss the Public Defender's Big Hairy Ass (TM) a couple of days later, falling all over themself to support the motion for a continuance?

> Moreover, why did the Prosecutor, in a second court date set to renew the motion for a continuance, and arranged in a secret meeting between the Prosecutor, Judge and Public Defender, without the Defendant present, provide the Public Defender with the Cite he needed to succeed in the motion, against his Client's wishes?

Lies The Prosecutor Told Me #4,387,542:

> "In situations such as this, when a defendant insists on his right to go to trial, it is the policy of the Department of Justice to charge and try him on all of the offenses that are supported by the Evidence."

TruthMonger #0 SEZ:

> Now you've really put your foot in it, you Dumb Fucking Bastard (TM).

> Since not all of the threatened charges in the Original Plea Agreement offer were made part of the Superseding Indictment, then it must follow that some of the threats in the Original Plea Agreement offer were based on false charges that were not supported by the evidence, but merely included for the sake of impressing upon the Defendant that the Ferral Prosecutor had the power to punish the Defendant with the filing of unsupported criminal charges for exercising his Constitutional Rights.

Lies The Prosecutor Told Me #3:

> "In the interests of Justice ... "

Judge Bryan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

> Plaintiff.

v.

CARL JOHNSON,

> Defendant.

NO CR98-5393RJB

PLEA AGREEMENT

Comes now the United States of America, by Katrina C. Pflaumer, United States Attorney, and Robb London, Assistant United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington, and the defendant, Carl Johnson, and his attorney, Gene Grantham, and enter into the following Agreement, pursuant to Rule ll(e), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

1. Waiver of Indictment. The defendant, having been advised of the right to be charged by Indictment agrees to waive that right and enter a plea of guilty to a charge brought by the United States Attorney in an Information.

2. The Charge[s]. The defendant, having been advised of the right to have this matter tried before a jury, agrees to waive that right and to enter a plea of guilty to one felony count of Forcible Interference With The Administration of the Internal Revenue Laws, as charged in the Information, a violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7212(a). By entering this plea of guilty, the defendant hereby waives any and all objections to the filed charge predicated on the form of the charging Information.

3. The Penalties. The defendant understands and acknowledges that the statutory penalties for the offense charged in the Information are as follows: imprisonment for up to three (3) years; a fine of up to five thousand dollars ($5,000.00); a period of supervision following release from prison of up to three (3) years; and a one hundred dollar ($100.00) mandatory penalty assessment for a national crime victims' fund. The defendant agrees that the penalty assessment shall be paid at or before the time of sentencing.

4. Rights Waived by Pleading Guilty. The defendant understands and acknowledges that, by pleading guilty, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the following rights:

> a. The right to plead not guilty, and to persist in a plea of not guilty;

> b. The right to be presumed innocent until guilt has been established at trial, beyond a reasonable doubt;

> c. The right to trial before a jury of the defendant's peers, and at that trial, the right to the effective assistance of counsel;

> d. The right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against the defendant;

> e. The right to compel or subpoena witnesses to appear on the defendant's behalf:

> f. The right to testify or to remain silent at trial at which such silence could not be used against the defendant; and

> g. The right to appeal a finding of guilty or any pretrial rulings.

5. Applicability of Sentencing Guidelines. The defendant understands and acknowledges the following:

> a. That the United States Sentencing Guidelines, promulgated by the United States Sentencing Commission, are applicable to this case;

> b. That the Government anticipates that the applicable guideline for this offence is USSG 2A2.4, and that the defendant's Criminal History Category will be 1, but the Government cannot and does not promise that these will be the guidelines or calculations applied by the court at time of sentencing;

> c. That the Court will determine the applicable guideline, Criminal History Category, and the corresponding range at the time of sentencing;

> d. That the Court may impose any sentence authorized by law, including a sentence that, under some circumstances, departs from any applicable Sentencing Guidelines range up to the maximum term authorized by law;

> e. That the Court is not bound by any recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, or by any calculation or estimation of the Sentencing Guidelines range offered by the parties, or by the United States Probation Department; and,

> f. The defendant may not withdraw a guilty plea solely because of the guideline range or the sentence imposed by the Court.

6. Ultimate Sentence. The defendant acknowledges that no one has promised or guaranteed what sentence the Court will impose.

7. Restitution. The defendant understands that in addition to any term of imprisonment and/or fine that is imposed, the Court may order the defendant to pay restitution to victim(s) of the offense, as required by law. Furthermore, the defendant herein expressly agrees that he owes restitution in the amount of $277.25 to reimburse the Government for medical expenses that were incurred when he physically assaulted IRS Inspector Bruce Mason at the time of his arrest in connection with the instant charge.

8. Elements of the Offense. The defendant acknowledges herein that he has been advised of, and understands, that the offense to which he is entering a plea of guilty has the following elements, and that the Government would have to prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt were this matter to go to trial:

> a. The defendant threatened to use force against an officer of the United States;

> b. That officer was acting in an official capacity enforcing the Internal Revenue laws of the United States;

> c. The defendant took actions to carry out his threats;

> d. The defendant's purpose or intent was to obstruct intimidate [added by hand] or impede the due administration of the internal revenue laws.

9. Statement of Facts. The parties agree on the following facts for purposes of supporting the plea:

> In 1996, the Internal Security Division of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), United States Department of the Treasury, conducted an investigation of an individual named James Dalton Bell, for obstruction with the internal revenue laws and other offenses.

> The investigation of Bell uncovered evidence that Bell was proposing a plan titled "Assassination Politics". Bell's Assassination Politics plan called for the use of the Internet to create a way to anonymously fund the assassinations of IRS and other Government officials, for the stated purpose of overthrowing the Government. Bell proposed in the plan that the system be set up as a computerized gambling operation where the assassin "predicted" the date of death of the government employee, with the assassination payoff being funneled to the assassin as proceeds from the bet. Bell heavily promoted this plan in electronic mail messages (e-mail) that he exchanged with an Internet group known as the "Cypherpunks". During the investigation of Bell it was noted that Bell had exchanged both private and public e-mail messages with an unidentified person using the name "Toto".

> On April 1, 1997, a search warrant was executed on Bell's residence. IRS Inspector Jeff Gordon was the affiant on the search warrant affidavit. The search warrant return listed (former) IRS employees Cindy Nelson and Cindy Brown as being involved in the inventory of items at Bell's residence. Shortly thereafter, a member of the Cypherpunks group obtained a copy of the warrant and return and publicly posted them on the Internet. On May 16, 1997 Bell was arrested and charged with Corruptly Obstructing and Impeding Employees of the IRS and Using a False Social Security Number, and he later pleaded guilty to those charges.

> On June 23, 1997, an anonymous message was posted to the Cypherpunks mailing list. The message stated in part: " 'Dead Lucky' is an Assassination Politics Bot operated in response to the illegal and unconstitutional imprisonment of an American citizen..." The message also stated, in relevant part:

> > Leading eCa$h candidates for dying at an opportune time to make some perennial loser 'Dead Lucky' are:

> > e$ 1,500.48
> > Jeffrey Gordon, Inspector with the Internal Revenue Service,
> > Internal Security Division

> > e$ 758.00 Inspector Cindy Nelson

> > e$ 514.02 Cindy Brown"

> "Bot" is a slang term for an automated computer program. "e$" and "eCa$h" are slang terms for electronic or digital cash, which was a major component of Bell's Assassination Politics proposal. Digital cash has been tested and used on the Internet on a limited basis.

> On September 4, 1997, a second message involving "Dead Lucky" was anonymously posted to the Cypherpunks group. This message stated in part "If you can correctly predict the date and tune of death of others then you can win large prizes payable in untaxable untraceable eca$h." This message contained a link to a "carljohn" Internet web page hosted by the Canadian Internet company Sympatico.

> On the "carljohn" Internet web page was a copy of Bell's Assassination Politics plan. There was also an interactive page titled "Dead Lucky". On the page was the statement "If you can correctly predict the place and time of death of others then you can win larse prizes payable in untaxable, untraceable eca$h.". The page also contained blank fields for input of "Name of Future Deceased," "Location," "Predicted Date of Death" and "Predicted Time of Death". Also on the page was the statement "Contest will officially begin after Posting of Rules and Announcement of Official Starting Date (Until then it is for Entertainment Purposes Only)". Inspector Gordon ran a test of the program by selecting the submit button arid noted that the program accepted information placed in the blank fields and generated a confirmation number.

> Investigators for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Canada also investigated Carl Johnson for similar statements and threats made on the Internet involving RCMP officers. They executed search warrants and received information from the Sympatico Internet provider, reviewed the contents of two computers seized from Johnson, and also investigated the "carliohn" internet site. Logs of telephone calls made from Johnson's residence on March 25, 1998 matched exactly the times of accesses to the internet account controlling the "carljohn" web site, which is where the "Assassination Politics Bot" program was found.

> Carl Johnson was the author and maker of each and every one of the threatening communications described above, and he made the threats and posted the "e-cash" scheme on the internet for the purpose, in part, of impeding and obstructing the IRS's investigation and prosecution of James Bell, and for the purpose of retaliating against the IRS for that prosecution.

> All of the threats were received electronically, via the internet, in Tacoma, Seattle, and elsewhere within the Western District of Washington.

10. In exchange for his plea of guilty to the charge in the Information, the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Washington agrees to dismiss the charge in the pending Indictment at time of sentencing, and agrees, further, not to prosecute the defendant for any other offenses, other than any crimes of violence, which the defendant may have committed in the Western District of Washington prior to the date of this agreement and about which the Government presently possesses information. The Government agrees that it will not seek a Superseding Indictment from the Grand Jury charging the defendant with additional felony counts of Threatening Communications, as violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 875(c). The Government also agrees that it will forego prosecuting the defendant for his fraudulent use of a false Social Security Number in Arizona, Nevada, and elsewhere, and that it will dismiss the pending Complaint against the defendant in the District of Arizona, where the defendant is presently charged with assaulting a federal officer, for his assault againt Inspector Mason at the time of his arrest and booking in this matter.

11. Acceptance of Responsibility. If at time of sentencing the defendant has shown a continuing willingness to accept responsibility for his offense(s), and if the defendant accepts this plea agreement and promptly enters a plea, the United States will recommend an appropriate downward adjustment, pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, Section 3E1. l(a) or Section 3E1. l(b).

12. Voluntariness of Plea. The defendant acknowledges that he has entered this plea agreement freely and voluntarily, and that no threats or promises, other than the promises contained in this plea agreement, were made to induce the defendant to enter this plea of guilty.

13. Breach and Waiver. The defendant understands and agrees that if he breaches the plea agreement, the defendant may be prosecuted and sentenced for all of the offenses which he committed. The defendant agrees that if he breaches this plea agreement, the United States Attorney reserves the right to take whatever steps are necessary to nullify the plea agreement, including the filing of a motion to withdraw from the plea agreement. The defendant also agrees that if the he is in breach of this plea agreement, the defendant is deemed to have waived objection to the reinstitution of any charges which may have previously been dismissed or which may have not been previously prosecuted. The defendant further agrees that if he is in breach of this agreement, he is deemed to have also waived objection to the filing of any additional charges against him.

14. Completeness of Agreement. The Government and the defendant acknowledge that these terms constitute the entire plea agreement between the parties.

Dated: this ____________ day of _________________, 1999.

> ____________________________

> CARL JOHNSON Defendant

> ____________________________

> GENE GRANTHAM Attorney for Defendant

> ____________________________

> ROBB LONDON Assistant United States Attorney

02/26/99 12:11 FAX 206 553 2054 US ATTORNEY 002

| U.S. Department of Justice Unites States Attorney Western District of Washington |
Please reply to: Robb London Assistant United States Attorney Direct Line: (206) 553-4734 | 3600 Seafirst Fifth Avenue Plaza 800 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104-3190 | Tel: (206) 553-7970 Fax: (206) 553-0882

February 26, 1999

Gene Grantham
Attorney at Law
119 First Avenue South, Suite 500
Seattle, Washington 98104-2533

Re: United States v. Carl Edward Johnson
No. CR98-5393RJB. USDC, W.D. Washington

Dear Gene:

This morning your client, Carl Johnson, was brought to court for the purpose of entering a plea of guilty to one count of Interference With the Internal Revenue Laws, pursuant to the Plea Agreement which we contemplated.

However, as you are aware, your client did not enter a guilty plea as anticipated. That is his perogative. The Government's perogative, now, is to go forward with a superseding indictment, and trial on March 15th. We are opposed to any continuances of this matter, because of the public's interest in a speedy trial.

In situations such as this, when a defendant insists on his nght to go to trial, it is the policy of the Deapartmen of Justice to charge and try him on all of the offenses that are supported by the evidence. Accordingly, we will be charging Mr. Johnson with Obstruction under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503, and with Threatening Communications in Interstate or Foreign Commerce, under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). The Obstruction charge carries a potential maximum term of imprisonment of ten years. Please be advised that the Government estimates his sentencing guidelines exposure as follows:

18 USC 1503; applicable guideline: (Obstruction of Justice) | 2J1.2A
2J1.2A; Base Offense Level | 12
2J1.2B(1) (threat to injure) | +8
3A1.2(a) (official victim enhancement) | +3
3B1.3 (use of special skill) (anonymous re-mailers, PGP keys, encryption) | +2
______________________________________________________________
| 25
3D1.4 (Grouping of multiple counts) | +2
______________________________________________________________
| 27

A Total Offence Level of 27 and a Cnminal History Category of I yields a range of 70 to 87 months.

Please advise your client that in view of the gravity and dangerousness of his threats, and of his refusal to accept responsibility in this matter, the Government has decided that it will seek a high-end sentence of 87 months, and may even seek an upward departure based on the additional threats to Bill Gates and others.

Mr. Johnson can still enter a plea according to the terms of the Plea Agreement, but only until the close of business today. After that, there will be no leniency from the Government, even if he pleads straight up to fee Indictment or the anticipated Superceding Indictment.

> Sincerely,

> KATRINA C. PFLAUMER
> United States Attorney

> [Signature]

> ROBB LONDON
> Assistant United States Attorney

Judge Bryan

Presented to the Court by the foreman of the
Grand Jury in open court, in the presence of
the Grand Jury and FILED in The U.S.
DISTRICT COURT at Seattle, Washington

March 4, 1999
BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

By Lowell Williams Deputy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

> Plaintiff.

v.

CARL JOHNSON,

> Defendant.

NO CR98-5393RJB

SUPERCEDING INDICTMENT

COUNT ONE

(Obstruction of Justice by Threat of Death Against Judicial Officer)

On or about June 23, 1997, CARL EDWARD JOHNSON did endeavor to influence, obstruct, and impede the due administration of justice in United States v. James Dalton Bell, No. CR97-5270FDB, a criminal proceeding in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, by transmitting over the Internet an electronic mail communication containing a death threat against J. Kelley Arnold, a United States Magistrate Judge who was engaged in the discharge of his duties in said proceeding, which threat was received on the Internet at Tacoma, within the Western District of Washington, and elsewhere.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503(a) and (b)(3).

COUNT TWO

(Retaliation Against Judicial Officer)

On or about June 23, 1997, CARL EDWARD JOHNSON did threaten to murder and aid and abet in the murder of J. Kelley Arnold, a United States Magistrate Judge, with intent to retaliate against Judge Arnold on account of the performance of his official duties, which threat CARL EDWARD JOHNSON transmitted over the Internet, and was received over the Internet at Tacoma, within the Western District of Washington, and elsewhere.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section ll5(a)(1)(B) and (b)(4) and Section 2.

COUNT THREE

(Obstruction of Justice by Threat of Death Against Judicial Officer)

On or about December 9, 1997, CARL EDWARD JOHNSON did endeavor to influence, obstruct, and impede the due administration of justice in Bernstein v. Department of Commerce, et al., a civil case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 97-16686, by transmitting over the Internet an electronic mail communication containing a death threat against Betty Binns Fletcher, a United States Circuit Judge who was engaged in the discharge of her duties in said case, which threat was received on the Internet at Seattle, within the Western District of Washington, and elsewhere.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503(a) and (b)(3).

COUNT FOUR

(Threatening Communications in Interstate or Foreign Commerce)

On or about December 9, 1997, CARL EDWARD JOHNSON knowingly and intentionally transmitted an electronic mail communication containing a threat to injure the person of United States Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher, which threatening communication traveled electronically in foreign commerce, via the Internets from.Canada to the United States, at Seattle, within the Western District of Washington, and elsewhere.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 875(c).

COUNT FIVE

(Threatening Communications in Interstate or Foreign Commerce)

On or about March 20, 1998, CARL EDWARD JOHNSON knowingly and intentionally transmitted an electronic mail communication containing a threat to injure the person of William Gates III, which threatening communication traveled electronically in foreign commerce, via the Internet, from Canada to the United States, at Redmond, within the Western District of Washington, and elsewhere.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 875(c).

> A TRUE BILL:

> DATED; 4 March 1999

> [Signature]

> FOREPERSON

[Signature]
KATRINA C. PFLAUMER
United States Attorney

[Signature]
MARK N. BARTLE
Assistant United States Attorney

[Signature]
FLOYD G. SHORE
Assistant United States Attorney

[Signature]
ROBB LONDON
Assistant United States Attorney

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

> V.

CARL EDWARD JOHNSON (Defendant)

CASE NO. 98-CR-5393

MOTION TO APPEAR PRO SE WITH STAND-BY COUNSEL

Comes now Carl Edward Johnson, the defendant in the above entitled action, and presents to the Court the following statement in support of the above mentioned action:

Since present counsel lacks the necessary qualifications to adequately prepare a proper defense such as a working knowledge of computers and the software used with operating them or the theories and applications used in programming said computers, I feel that in the interests of justice that I am better qualified to defend myself. I have degrees and certificates in SCO Unix Computer Systems Administration, Unix Technical Systems Administration, 4th Generation Database Programming and Computer Database System Management, C-Programming Language, C-Shell Programming and MS-DOS Based Systems Analysis.

WHEREFORE, movant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to permit him to appear pro se, as one of trial counsel in this case, to function as an attorney in his own defense, pursuant to the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Signed this __________ day of __________ 1999. | Respectfully submitted, _______________________________ Carl Edward Johnson (Defendant)
COPIES SENT TO: US DISTRCT COURT Judge Robert J. Bryan 1717 Pacific Ave. Rm 3100 Tacoma Wa. 98402 | Gene Grantham 119 First Ave South Suite 500 Seattle WA. 98104