Not surprisingly, this has been and remains a BIG story here ~ I can't decide which is worse: Turner's story being true or Turner's story not being true ~ ~ but given the time frame, efforts to "ferret out violent left-wing radicals" fits ~ Sooz


Report: FBI paid blogger who threatened 3 Chicago judges

Accused man claims he was trained in fight against domestic terrorism

November 30, 2009

TRENTON, N.J. -- A New Jersey blogger about to stand trial on charges he made death threats against three federal judges in Chicago apparently was paid by the FBI in its battle against domestic terrorism, according to a published report.

The Record of Bergen County reported Sunday that Hal Turner received thousands of dollars from the FBI to report on neo-Nazis and white supremacist groups and was sent undercover to Brazil.

Turner also claims the FBI coached him to make racist, anti-Semitic and other threatening statements on his radio show, but the newspaper also found many federal officials were concerned that his audience might follow up on his violence rhetoric.

The newspaper reviewed numerous government documents, e-mails, court records and almost 20 hours of jailhouse interviews with Turner.

He goes on trial Tuesday in New York, accused of making death threats against the federal appeals judges after saying in Internet postings in June the judges "deserve to be killed" because they didn't overturn handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park.

The postings included the photos and work addresses of the judges -- Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook, and William Bauer -- along with a picture of the Dirksen Federal Courthouse in downtown Chicago and notations indicating the placement of "anti-truck bomb barriers."

Turner's FBI connections began in 2003 with the Newark-based Joint Terrorism Task Force and continued on and off until this year, according to the newspaper. He claims his postings and other inflammatory statements were part of an undercover operation to ferret out violent left-wing radicals.

His lawyer, Michael Orozco, has subpoenaed Chris Christie, the former U.S. attorney for New Jersey and the state's governor-elect, to testify on Turner's behalf.

In an affidavit filed with the subpoena, Orozco says Christie knew of Turner's activities between 2002 and 2008 while Christie held his federal post. Orozco says Christie issued a letter saying he would not prosecute Turner for his statements.

It was not known whether Christie would be called to testify.

Federal prosecutors and FBI officials declined comment on Turner's claims.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/19113 ... 30.article

i can't figure out how to react to this either.

Wouldn't this be considered entrapment?

How so?

How so?

If he was paid by the federal government to make the threats, the federal government would be hard pressed to get a conviction when he made them.

The legal definition for "entrapment" is tricky ~ tricky to prove and tricky to defend ~ the following definition is from the USLegal site [at http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/entrapment/] ~ Sooz


"In criminal law, a person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit. A defendant who is subject to entrapment may not be convicted as a matter of public policy.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. In order to be found to be a victim of entrapment, the entrapped person must have been willing and willing to commit the crime prior to the alleged entrapment. The mere providing of an opportunity to commit a crime is not entrapment. In order to find entrapment, there must be persuasion to commit a crime by the entrapping party.

Entrapment is an affirmative defense in which the defendant has the burden of proof. It excuses a criminal defendant from liability for crimes proved to have been induced by certain governmental persuasion or deceit. To claim inducement, a defendant must demonstrate that the government conduct created a situation in which an otherwise law-abiding citizen would commit an offense. The defendant must show that he or she was unduly persuaded, threatened, coerced, harassed or offered pleas based on sympathy or friendship by police."