View Full Version : An FBI Frame Up And A Rigged Trial!
Rage inducing read the whole thing, FBI trying to entrap and then kill a 2nd Amendment guy who said some nasty things about them that must have been true judging from their response.
https://redoubtnews.com/2019/10/fbi-frame-up-rigged-trial/
"Schaeffer Cox, a well known 2nd Amendment lobbyist who had won 38% of the vote in a State House election, became the subject of an intense FBI investigation after he angered State and Federal authorities by openly accusing them of drug trafficking and child prostitution."
"Fearing for their lives, the Cox family packed up and headed for Canada. But the FBI sent another undercover provocateur, RJ Olson, after them, court documents say. Olson, a self described “drug wholesaler” working under the supervision of FBI Special Agent Richard Southerland, held the whole Cox family, including a 2 year old boy and a 3 week old baby girl, hostage, against their will in an attic for 21 days after sabotaging their vehicle, then using death threats from Fulton and a made up story about a truck driver to keep them from leaving.
“The government does not dispute the fact that the actions of the provocateurs working under the FBI’s supervision did in fact meet the legal definition of 1st degree kidnapping,” said Robert John, the Fairbanks attorney who got all related State charges against Cox thrown out.
On March 10th, 2011 Schaeffer Cox was taken from the attic to a deserted industrial lot in Fairbanks where he believed he would meet the “truck driver” Olson had promised. No such truck driver existed. Instead, there was a FBI ambush of out of town agents who did not know Schaeffer Cox was a well respected local political voice with popular support. The Agent’s, who had been instructed to shoot Schaeffer Cox on site if he had a weapon, were not advised by the local FBI case agent of Cox’s repeated statements about being like Ghandi not Rambo.
FBI Special Agent Richard Southerland supplied JR Olson with an unregistered, nontraceable pistol and instructed him to “put it in Schaeffer’s lap then get under the truck so there will be some thick metal between you and him when the shooting starts.” The FBI’s plan was interrupted when the owner of the industrial lot happened upon the scene and started asking questions about why men with masks and machine guns were hiding around the corner."
Yeah... You might want to do some more research about Schaeffer Cox before hitching your horse to this wagon.
I was trying to dig up a good article on the whole thing, but I can't find it anymore. I actually know people on both sides of this event, LEO and militia guys, that basically agree Cox had some mental issues and the sovereign citizen movement has bent the story to their needs. This article (not the one I was originally looking for), while maybe just as unreliable as the one you linked, provides further insight to the case and actually reports the story pretty well from the perspective of most Alaskan 2A advocates. Cox is a fringe whack job to many of us. https://psmag.com/environment/the-peacemaker-schaeffer-cox-plot-mass-murder-alaska-77139
Business_Casual
10-29-19, 05:36
Cox is a fringe whack job to many of us.
Is that a crime, though?
Yeah... You might want to do some more research about Schaeffer Cox before hitching your horse to this wagon.
You are right, I should have done more research, yet once again FBI using informants to entrap idiots.
Is that a crime, though?
Not automatically, but if he's a legit sovereign citizen? That comes with an automatic level of suspicion.
Per usual I’m happy to see what appears to be another 9/11 was stopped.
[emoji849]
Cheap stats ftw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah I wonder how many millions of $ the FBI spends on these "cases".
Cox was an idiot. Does not change the fact that the FBI went to extreme lengths, to entrap him. In fact, it seems what they do best.
Ruby Ridge, started with a shorty shotgun that was used to leverage a dude, who would not be leveraged...than the Gov. made a pittance payment, to make the FBI's fiasco go away. Not a single agent saw time.
The simple fact that all FBI roads run to the MotherShip on the East Coast, is pretty scary. I would like to think the rank file do the right thing, but I have been questioning that since the early 90's.
HardToHandle
10-29-19, 20:48
Hmmmm... When a guy from Alaska throws the yellow flag talking about Alaska issues, I am inclined to listen.
Randy Weaver and what happened to his family is very, very real to me, but it is also from when Bill Cosby was still America’s Dad. There are few FBI agents on the job today that were even in the Bureau in 1992. Hell, you qualify to be an agent having been born AFTER Ruby Ridge happened.
The fact our oft-cited outrages have become historical footnotes is a net positive. Not saying we should forget the past, but nearly 30 years is a decent period of time.
Hell, I think Ruby Ridge and even the Waco Branch Davidians was a travesty. Cox's deal barely tickles my outrage-o-meter.
I dont necesailry disagree. Im just saying the FBI still uses entrapment as a frontline tactic and wants us to believe things are on the up and up?
Keep your eye on the General Flynn case. It looks like the FBI did everything they could to entrap him.
I know we have LEO's on our board and would like to know their thoughts on what essentially entails setting someone up, to break a law, in order to get a prosecution.
The FBI just seems to be breaking the law all the time, it didn't stop with Ruby Ridge and Waco. Mueller put innocent men in prison to protect Whitey Bulger, the whole Trump coup attempt. They never seem to be held to account for their actions, I used to tell myself that there had to be a lot of good honorable people there but I now believe the agency is totally corrupt.
The FBI just seems to be breaking the law all the time, it didn't stop with Ruby Ridge and Waco. Mueller put innocent men in prison to protect Whitey Bulger, the whole Trump coup attempt. They never seem to be held to account for their actions, I used to tell myself that there had to be a lot of good honorable people there but I now believe the agency is totally corrupt.
I believe there are serious issues with the FBI as well. I also often wonder if Cox was actually harmless, but he openly admitted he probably shouldn't have said what he said. The fact he kept a hit list and plans that the FBI did not make up, puts him in the criminal category. I know for a fact that the FBI and state LEO were keeping a pretty close eye on the militias in this state post 9/11.
I will say the the "militias" of the early 2000's in Alaska were full of nut jobs other than Cox. I know some of those dudes are still involved and I see them from time to time. The only thing they have going for them is that they keep their mouths shut. I went to several meetings "pre-Cox" in the early 2000's for a couple local "militias" and I walked away quickly.
I was firmly convinced that I was being set up by the ATF or FBI at one time. I got a text one day from an acquaintance I'd met at one of those meetings saying he thought he found a full auto M16 sear and dis-connector at a yard sale. He wanted to send me pics and see if I wanted to buy it. I bluntly told him not to send me pics and not to contact me about it ever again. I passed the info off to one of my LEO friends and I don't believe anything ever came of it. I might be a little paranoid, as after that I have worked with the ATF at our local rifle range test firing full autos and I got my FFL with no issues. Who knows?
I believe there are serious issues with the FBI as well.
There are folks in every organization who will do whatever it takes to get ahead, there are also folks in every organization who enjoy the power they have over others and abuse that power. They are the folks who get the notice.
I think the problem with the FBI is not widespread among the troops - rather it lies with some administrators and their minions.
This is an interesting example which describes my perspective:
Fifteen years ago, after the Rodney King beating, the Los Angeles Police Department was in crisis. It was accused of racial insensitivity and ill discipline and violence, and the assumption was that those problems had spread broadly throughout the rank and file. In the language of statisticians, it was thought that L.A.P.D.’s troubles had a “normal” distribution—that if you graphed them the result would look like a bell curve, with a small number of officers at one end of the curve, a small number at the other end, and the bulk of the problem situated in the middle. The bell-curve assumption has become so much a part of our mental architecture that we tend to use it to organize experience automatically.
But when the L.A.P.D. was investigated by a special commission headed by Warren Christopher, a very different picture emerged. Between 1986 and 1990, allegations of excessive force or improper tactics were made against eighteen hundred of the eighty-five hundred officers in the L.A.P.D. The broad middle had scarcely been accused of anything. Furthermore, more than fourteen hundred officers had only one or two allegations made against them—and bear in mind that these were not proven charges, that they happened in a four-year period, and that allegations of excessive force are an inevitable feature of urban police work. (The N.Y.P.D. receives about three thousand such complaints a year.) A hundred and eighty-three officers, however, had four or more complaints against them, forty-four officers had six or more complaints, sixteen had eight or more, and one had sixteen complaints. If you were to graph the troubles of the L.A.P.D., it wouldn’t look like a bell curve. It would look more like a hockey stick. It would follow what statisticians call a “power law” distribution—where all the activity is not in the middle but at one extreme.
The Christopher Commission’s report repeatedly comes back to what it describes as the extreme concentration of problematic officers. One officer had been the subject of thirteen allegations of
excessive use of force, five other complaints, twenty-eight “use of force reports” (that is, documented, internal accounts of inappropriate behavior), and one shooting. Another had six excessive-force
complaints, nineteen other complaints, ten use-of-force reports, and three shootings. A third had twenty-seven use-of-force reports, and a fourth had thirty-five. Another had a file full of complaints for
doing things like “striking an arrestee on the back of the neck with the butt of a shotgun for no apparent reason while the arrestee was kneeling and handcuffed,” beating up a thirteen-year-old juvenile, and
throwing an arrestee from his chair and kicking him in the back and side of the head while he was handcuffed and lying on his stomach.
The report gives the strong impression that if you fired those forty-four cops the L.A.P.D. would suddenly become a pretty well-functioning police department. But the report also suggests that the problem is tougher than it seems, because those forty-four bad cops were so bad that the institutional mechanisms in place to get rid of bad apples clearly weren’t working. If you made the mistake of assuming that the department’s troubles fell into a normal distribution, you’d propose solutions that would raise the performance of the middle—like better training or better hiring—when the middle didn’t need help. For those hard-core few who did need help, meanwhile, the medicine that helped the middle wouldn’t be nearly strong enough. - from Million Dollar Murray
The problem is the good people in the FBI by staying silent about the abuses they witness are enabling the bad actor. I don't doubt that there are agents all over the country that are pissed off by what they see but to save the reputation of the Bureau and their pensions they remain silent. With the outright lawlessness we are witnessing in DC the fact that not one agent in the know has come forward as a whistle blower or by retiring and speaking up is telling. I think many are afraid to do so because they know what will happen to them which is telling about the culture of corruption that has infected all levels of Federal government. One of the smarter things Trump has started doing is moving the headquarters of these agencies out of DC and into flyover country, a lot more of that needs to be done.
I dont necesailry disagree. Im just saying the FBI still uses entrapment as a frontline tactic and wants us to believe things are on the up and up?
Keep your eye on the General Flynn case. It looks like the FBI did everything they could to entrap him.
I know we have LEO's on our board and would like to know their thoughts on what essentially entails setting someone up, to break a law, in order to get a prosecution.
Don't forget the multiple attempts to entrap Papadopoulos that culminated in an alleged CIA asset giving him $10K in Israel. The FBI was waiting for him on the tarmac at Dulles the moment he arrived back in country and were shocked he didn't have the $10K on him. Any bets on whether the $10K, which Papadopoulos' attorney in Athens still has possession of, is marked?
The FBI just seems to be breaking the law all the time, it didn't stop with Ruby Ridge and Waco. Mueller put innocent men in prison to protect Whitey Bulger, the whole Trump coup attempt. They never seem to be held to account for their actions, I used to tell myself that there had to be a lot of good honorable people there but I now believe the agency is totally corrupt.
Right now the media is working OT to frame Mifsud as a Russian intelligence asset and NOT a CIA/Italian Intelligence asset (don't forget that the Italian PM has FIRED top level executives in the DIS, AISI and AISE). They're also working to force Barr to recuse himself, which is falling flat on it's face. We still don't know who "Azra TurK" is, but we know CIA asset Stephan Halper brought her to Papadopoulos.
Back on topic, I have no idea whether top level FBI officials were in on this Op and I don't put any faith in a sovereign to speak the truth. However, The fish rots from the head down and the "head" of the FBI is VERY rotten. :(
There are folks in every organization who will do whatever it takes to get ahead, there are also folks in every organization who enjoy the power they have over others and abuse that power. They are the folks who get the notice.
I think the problem with the FBI is not widespread among the troops - rather it lies with some administrators and their minions.
This is an interesting example which describes my perspective:
Fifteen years ago, after the Rodney King beating, the Los Angeles Police Department was in crisis. It was accused of racial insensitivity and ill discipline and violence, and the assumption was that those problems had spread broadly throughout the rank and file. In the language of statisticians, it was thought that L.A.P.D.’s troubles had a “normal” distribution—that if you graphed them the result would look like a bell curve, with a small number of officers at one end of the curve, a small number at the other end, and the bulk of the problem situated in the middle. The bell-curve assumption has become so much a part of our mental architecture that we tend to use it to organize experience automatically.
But when the L.A.P.D. was investigated by a special commission headed by Warren Christopher, a very different picture emerged. Between 1986 and 1990, allegations of excessive force or improper tactics were made against eighteen hundred of the eighty-five hundred officers in the L.A.P.D. The broad middle had scarcely been accused of anything. Furthermore, more than fourteen hundred officers had only one or two allegations made against them—and bear in mind that these were not proven charges, that they happened in a four-year period, and that allegations of excessive force are an inevitable feature of urban police work. (The N.Y.P.D. receives about three thousand such complaints a year.) A hundred and eighty-three officers, however, had four or more complaints against them, forty-four officers had six or more complaints, sixteen had eight or more, and one had sixteen complaints. If you were to graph the troubles of the L.A.P.D., it wouldn’t look like a bell curve. It would look more like a hockey stick. It would follow what statisticians call a “power law” distribution—where all the activity is not in the middle but at one extreme.
The Christopher Commission’s report repeatedly comes back to what it describes as the extreme concentration of problematic officers. One officer had been the subject of thirteen allegations of
excessive use of force, five other complaints, twenty-eight “use of force reports” (that is, documented, internal accounts of inappropriate behavior), and one shooting. Another had six excessive-force
complaints, nineteen other complaints, ten use-of-force reports, and three shootings. A third had twenty-seven use-of-force reports, and a fourth had thirty-five. Another had a file full of complaints for
doing things like “striking an arrestee on the back of the neck with the butt of a shotgun for no apparent reason while the arrestee was kneeling and handcuffed,” beating up a thirteen-year-old juvenile, and
throwing an arrestee from his chair and kicking him in the back and side of the head while he was handcuffed and lying on his stomach.
The report gives the strong impression that if you fired those forty-four cops the L.A.P.D. would suddenly become a pretty well-functioning police department. But the report also suggests that the problem is tougher than it seems, because those forty-four bad cops were so bad that the institutional mechanisms in place to get rid of bad apples clearly weren’t working. If you made the mistake of assuming that the department’s troubles fell into a normal distribution, you’d propose solutions that would raise the performance of the middle—like better training or better hiring—when the middle didn’t need help. For those hard-core few who did need help, meanwhile, the medicine that helped the middle wouldn’t be nearly strong enough. - from Million Dollar Murray
Were the institutional mechanisms in place to get rid of bad apples clearly not working, or were those mechanisms working to keep the bad apples in place?
When a bad apple gets terminated/asked to resign for committing a crime (in lieu of an attempt at prosecution,) a frequent outcome is getting hired quickly by a neighboring agency then eventually making the news again for other, sometimes more serious, crimes.
Were the institutional mechanisms in place to get rid of bad apples clearly not working, or were those mechanisms working to keep the bad apples in place?
When a bad apple gets terminated/asked to resign for committing a crime (in lieu of an attempt at prosecution,) a frequent outcome is getting hired quickly by a neighboring agency then eventually making the news again for other, sometimes more serious, crimes.
In a jurisdiction local to me we had a bad apple. He had several citizen complaints and then he was caught using excessive force and reprimanded. After that, he was caught on tape using his 870 to buttstroke a proned out suspect in the head WHILE other officers were cuffing him and he wasn't resisting. He was fired by the agency, but he sued to get his job back and the court forced them to take him back.
What are you supposed to do with a bad apple when you're ORDERED to keep him on staff? IIRC, he eventually resigned because the other officers wouldn't back him on calls. They didn't want to be anywhere near him under any circumstances. I know it's rare, but it does happen and I'm still incredulous that the court backed him. :(
Were the institutional mechanisms in place to get rid of bad apples clearly not working, or were those mechanisms working to keep the bad apples in place?
Thanks for reading post. I don't know what the answer to this question is - whether the union/FOP was protecting them, or whether it was a case of the officers working for supervisors who endorsed that style of policing.
When a bad apple gets terminated/asked to resign for committing a crime (in lieu of an attempt at prosecution,) a frequent outcome is getting hired quickly by a neighboring agency then eventually making the news again for other, sometimes more serious, crimes.
I'm not speaking for California and their POST system, in Kansas when an officer resigns in lieu of termination is asked to resign or is terminated, that has to be reported to KS-CPOST. That information is then available to agencies looking to hire the officer. In many cases, KS-CPOST investigates and then moves to revoke the officer's certification if there were criminal or ethical issues.
I know that is also true in several other states, so I would ass-u-me that the majority of states have such mechanisms.
Those 'protections' were put into place specifically to address the problems of itinerant officers going from agency to agency, leaving a trail of malfeasance in their wake. They have largely eliminated the problem to which you alluded.
Thanks for reading post. I don't know what the answer to this question is - whether the union/FOP was protecting them, or whether it was a case of the officers working for supervisors who endorsed that style of policing.
I'm not speaking for California and their POST system, in Kansas when an officer resigns in lieu of termination is asked to resign or is terminated, that has to be reported to KS-CPOST. That information is then available to agencies looking to hire the officer. In many cases, KS-CPOST investigates and then moves to revoke the officer's certification if there were criminal or ethical issues.
I know that is also true in several other states, so I would ass-u-me that the majority of states have such mechanisms.
Those 'protections' were put into place specifically to address the problems of itinerant officers going from agency to agency, leaving a trail of malfeasance in their wake. They have largely eliminated the problem to which you alluded.
That is good there is a system in place, but what is the enforcement of it like? Any criminal penalties for violations? I have seen a few instance make news in Kentucky where that hasn't been adhered to and the officer that shot the librarian in Florida with CCI Blazer wad cutters is another recent one that stands out as getting axed for being a problem at one agency before making news in a big way at another agency.
Thanks for reading post. I don't know what the answer to this question is - whether the union/FOP was protecting them, or whether it was a case of the officers working for supervisors who endorsed that style of policing.
I'm not speaking for California and their POST system, in Kansas when an officer resigns in lieu of termination is asked to resign or is terminated, that has to be reported to KS-CPOST. That information is then available to agencies looking to hire the officer. In many cases, KS-CPOST investigates and then moves to revoke the officer's certification if there were criminal or ethical issues.
I know that is also true in several other states, so I would ass-u-me that the majority of states have such mechanisms.
Those 'protections' were put into place specifically to address the problems of itinerant officers going from agency to agency, leaving a trail of malfeasance in their wake. They have largely eliminated the problem to which you alluded.
Kansas is not the Feds. Full stop.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Kansas is not the Feds. Full stop.
Got it. How many FBI agents do you actually know?
Got it. How many FBI agents do you actually know?
I have one who lives across the street from me for the past two years. He has some interesting takes on us "common folks".
I believe he has been in, working on 12 years and cant wait to get back out East. He has yet to change my mind about rank and file FBI. I keep it corgal with him, but we are not drinking Mt. Gay on the rocks and talking about the kids in the backyard
I have one who lives across the street from me for the past two years. He has some interesting takes on us "common folks".
I believe he has been in, working on 12 years and cant wait to get back out East. He has yet to change my mind about rank and file FBI. I keep it corgal with him, but we are not drinking Mt. Gay on the rocks and talking about the kids in the backyard
I've had a lot of contact with FBI agents over the years and generally found them to be okay guys, I did run into two first office agents from NYC at a sniper school who let their mouths overload their asses, but other than and one other guy who thought 'if the FBI is helping, they have to be running it' I've had pretty good experiences.
I'm sure the general agency culture does keep some agents from admitting they don't know something, but for the most part the guys I've been involved with were not adverse to listening to others.
Sounds like your neighbor may be on the political career track, rather than the competency career track.
Business_Casual
10-31-19, 05:32
Where are Federal police powers in the Constitution, out of interest? The border and customs, maybe taxes. The rest of it is a pretty long stretch, IMO.
That said, the “law” to apply to these institutions is Price’s Law. The square root of the number of the people do 50% of the work. Good or bad...
I've had a lot of contact with FBI agents over the years and generally found them to be okay guys, I did run into two first office agents from NYC at a sniper school who let their mouths overload their asses, but other than and one other guy who thought 'if the FBI is helping, they have to be running it' I've had pretty good experiences.
I'm sure the general agency culture does keep some agents from admitting they don't know something, but for the most part the guys I've been involved with were not adverse to listening to others.
Sounds like your neighbor may be on the political career track, rather than the competency career track.
I 100% agree he is on the political career track. Living in the "Deep South" has been an eye opening experience for him...his words not mine. I believe he is from Fairfax Country, VA.
I read somewhere where they cant stay more than 5 years in any one AO...it that agency wide, including rank and file or is that just for upper management?
Got it. How many FBI agents do you actually know?
You’d be surprised. And there are a ton more 1811s than FBI, if you weren’t aware.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Outlander Systems
10-31-19, 12:21
Got it. How many FBI agents do you actually know?
Boomers.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.