fbi throws disabled vet in jail for youtube video

[cheka.]

thanks for your service? tough shit about the IED and fried brain :confused:

http://www.texaspolicenews.com/default.aspx?act=Newsletter.aspx&category=News+1-2&newsletterid=68025&menugroup=Home

In San Antonio this morning, Special Agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested 44-year-old Walter Steven Crosley of Lakehills, TX, for using the Internet to post threats to kill individuals working for the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) and to damage or destroy buildings by use of explosives announced United States Attorney Richard L. Durbin, Jr.; FBI Special Agent in Charge Christopher Combs, San Antonio Division; and, Special Agent in Charge James Werner, VA Office of Inspector General (VAOIG), South Central Field Office.

According to court records, Crosley served in the Army for 13 years including time in Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In 2005, Crosley, a Motor Transport Operator, suffered multiple injuries resulting from an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) detonation. In 2013, Crosley was permanently retired and received a 100% service-related disability.

He has received periodic treatment for his injuries at the Kerrville VA Medical Center. A criminal complaint and supporting affidavit filed in federal court today alleges that while visiting the facility on June 7, 2017, Crosley made a statement to a nurse that, “I may be the next guy that takes y’all out.” The complaint also states that Crosley, who claims to suffer health issues stemming from his service in Iraq and lack of proper treatment by the VA, periodically uploads videos to YouTube under the name of “Retired Warrior.”

In one of the videos, Crosley states that he threatened to blow up the Kerrville VA facility if they did not put him in a war related illness and injury study center. In his video, he also claimed that he would follow in the footsteps of other individuals suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), who either committed suicide, killed other individuals or destroyed property.

Crosley made his initial appearance this afternoon in federal court in San Antonio. He remains in federal custody pending a detention hearing scheduled for September 21 at 9:30 a.m. Upon conviction, Crosley faces up to ten years in federal prison. The FBI and the VAOIG investigated this case. Assistant United States Attorney Bud Paulissen is prosecuting this case on behalf of the Government. It is important to note that a criminal complaint is merely a charge and should not be considered as evidence of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

[cheka.]

his channel

here's the night he was arrested - says they arrested his son too


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id3XJchz56w

some background -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ACajaolUgU

[cheka.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vA8bU2YExU

[crimethink]

I sympathize with the guy and with his problems and frustration, but it's no surprise the Secret Police did what they did. He should know he can't say that to the goons at the VA. Of course, the punishment he's facing doesn't fit the "crime."

[Jewboo]

...Crosley made a statement to a nurse that, “I may be the next guy that takes y’all out.”

...Crosley states that he threatened to blow up the Kerrville VA facility if they did not put him in a war related illness and injury study center.



Fuck him.

:rolleyes:

[crimethink]

Fuck him.

:rolleyes:

I can't agree with that. This guy "served his country" and almost lost his life doing so. In fact, in many ways, he did. I can empathize with the frustration and callousness of "the system" - even the inhumanity of it.

He should have to apologize, and then do some community service at the VA clinic where it happened. Putting him a cage would be an outrageous miscarriage of justice.

Neither of us have not wished mass destruction on a deserving target, whether it's a local office of shitheads or Tel Aviv.

[midnight rambler]

Cannon fodder is what happens when one signs up to be cannon fodder.

[cheka.]

reminds me of the court denying unabomber insanity defense......even though his brain was fried by nyc.dc mk ultra studies

but 'they' will give low IQ negroes insanity defense for no apparent reason

[crimethink]

reminds me of the court denying unabomber insanity defense......even though his brain was fried by nyc.dc mk ultra studies


Actually, Dr. Kaczynski argued he was not insane, and wanted to argue justifiable homicide. The Jewdicial System refused to allow it.

Can't have anyone arguing in favor of direct action.

[cheka.]

twisted story - his lawyers say he's insane, gov disagrees, allows him to fight the non-insane fight

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law-jan-june98-unabomber_1-8/

Yesterday afternoon Kaczynski had agreed to go forward with his own attorneys with their mental health defense. By the time the attorneys were brought together in the courtroom by the judge to formalize this decision Kaczynski had changed his mind yet again. This morning he changed it again and decided he wanted to represent himself. The judge decided that he should not allow him to do this before deciding on Mr. Kaczynski’s competency to stand trial. So right now the judge has solicited suggestions for psychiatrists to test him on that issue.

And what did Theodore Kaczynski’s defense say about that, about going to the psychological testers on this competency issue?

DAVID JACKSON: They are the only ones really who believe that he may be found incompetent. The prosecution thinks he’s competent. The judge has said on the record he believes he’s competent. The defense attorney’s position is that Mr. Kaczynski’s refusal to go along with their decision to plead a mental illness defense proves that he’s acting out of his own best interest and that this is evidence of incompetency to stand trial.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now, backing up again just a bit so that we understand this. Yesterday, he wanted to substitute his defense attorneys, right?

DAVID JACKSON: Right. He changes his mind a lot here. He first said he would agree to go forward with their defense. Then he decided really minutes later that he wanted an outside attorney to represent him solely for the reason that this attorney would not use a mental illness defense. The judge said no to that; it was too late for a new attorney.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, David Jackson, what happens in the courtroom? Does he speak for himself to the court, or do his defense attorneys speak for him, even when he’s trying to get rid of them?

DAVID JACKSON: Today he spoke only through Judy Clarke, one of his attorneys. And he did speak out once just to answer a question yes, but he made his wishes known to Judy Clarke, and they are representing what his feelings are. But the judge has, in fact, brought back into the case a third lawyer who is appointed solely for the reason to represent Mr. Kaczynski in this conflict between his defense counsel.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: All right. Mr. Dratman, what is the law on changing attorneys and also on representing yourself?

DAVID DRATMAN, Criminal Defense Attorney: The judge has discretion to determine whether a change in counsel is appropriate. And the timeliness of the request is a key consideration. Under the 6th Amendment a defendant in a criminal case has the right to represent himself under certain circumstances. In this case the request was made to substitute Tony Sera from San Francisco into the case but without a time line as to when he could be prepared and begin the defense. The court ruled yesterday, I believe, that that was an untimely request and denied the request. However, today following events that occurred in the courtroom yesterday, when the judge declared that the defense team and not Mr. Kaczynski was in control of the issue of whether a mental status defense would be presented, Mr. Kaczynski apparently changed his mind and said, I think to everyone’s surprise, that he wanted to represent himself.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And what is the law on that?

DAVID DRATMAN: Well, a defendant in a criminal case does have a right to represent himself. The judge can rule that–and he–the judge has discretion to rule that that request is untimely; however, Judy Clarke, on behalf of Mr. Kaczynski said that he would be prepared to proceed immediately. And that issue was set aside. That would have settled the matter if the judge ruled that Mr. Kaczynski’s request to represent himself was untimely.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What do you mean by untimely?

DAVID DRATMAN: Well, there has been case law that said that a request to represent oneself when made just before the commencement of evidence is not timely; that is, you have to make the request sometime before that. However, the judge didn’t appear to be concerned about that. His concern was more on the issue of whether or not Ted Kaczynski was competent to represent himself. And that brought up the whole issue of whether or not he was competent to stand trial.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Dratman, what kind of psychological testing is used to determine competency to represent oneself, which is what I gather is now going to happen with Mr. Kaczynski?

DAVID DRATMAN: That’s a very good question. The court is probably going to ask whatever mental health experts are appointed to answer two questions: Does Mr. Kaczynski understand the nature of the proceedings; and two, is he able to cooperate and assist in his own defense? The defense raised the doubt today as to Mr. Kaczynski’s mental competency because they asserted to the court for the first time that they believe that Mr. Kaczynski’s mental illness interfered with his ability to assist in the only defense available in this case, and that is the mental status defense.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Heller, from a prosecutor’s point of view, what are the challenges represented if a defendant does represent himself?

DONALD HELLER, Former U.S. Attorney: Well, one, you need to be very cautious to protect the record to protect against plain error, as opposed to error that occurs because of failure to object to evidence. When you give up your right–

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I’m sorry. I didn’t understand that.

DONALD HELLER: Well, for appellate review there’s something called plain error, where an error occurs in the trial even though there’s no objection by the defense lawyer. It’s error that could result in a reversal. When you give up your right to competent counsel, which you do by self-representation, you waive your right to challenge ruling–decisions made because of failure to object. But you don’t give up your right to object to plain error, plain error on appeal. So you have to be overly cautious in controlling what evidence goes in and not taking advantage of someone because he’s representing himself.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So what does the prosecution, do you think, want to happen next? What do they want the outcome of this to be?

DONALD HELLER: Well, they want to move forward with a case. And if Kaczynski represents himself, that’s fine. I think the government prefers the mental issues not to be raised. And so I think they would love to see Kaczynski represent himself and not raise any mental issues.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And if there was a suicide attempt–and we know very little about this at this point–how would it influence what happens next?

DONALD HELLER: Well, there could be some evidence of lack of stability and incompetence, although I don’t think the standard that the court must use is really implicated by a suicide attempt if, in fact, it was a real suicide attempt. And there’s some real question about that right now.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Dratman, what happens to the defense lawyers if Theodore Kaczynski defends himself?

DAVID DRATMAN: Well, there are three options. First of all, the judge has asked the defense to consider whether or not they could simply accede to his request that they drop the mental status defense. And at this point that’s in limbo. They are in a very difficult position, a position that no defense lawyer wants to be in. You want to represent your client vigorously, and in this case save his life, and he’s basically attempting to take away the only way that they have available to save his life. The other option is that if Mr. Kaczynski represents himself, they could be appointed as standby counsel to assist him in the presentation of the defense and ultimately even take over the presentation in the penalty phase and still present the mental status defense. And finally, there could be a hybrid representation; that is, that the court could allow Mr. Kaczynski to represent himself, as well as having a defense counsel representing him, and sharing those responsibilities.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Mr. Dratman, how unusual is this? Have you been involved in any cases like this?

DAVID DRATMAN: Both Mr. Heller and I were involved in a case like this about 22 years ago. I was a law student at the time. It was Lynette Fromme’s case, and he was the prosecutor in the case.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And remind us what that case was.

DAVID DRATMAN: In that case in Sacramento Lynette Fromme was accused and ultimately convicted of attempting to assassinate the then president of the United States. And there were significant issues as to her capability to have–her capacity to form the intent to assassinate him. There was a potential mental defense in that case. Here first defense team was fired. She ultimately represented herself with standby counsel, who ultimately took over the defense of the case.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Heller, what do you think Theodore Kaczynski is up to here?

DONALD HELLER: Well, I frankly think he really wants to create chaos. And if you read his manifesto, that’s what the manifesto was about. And so I think this is the ultimate opportunity that he will have and the last opportunity to create further chaos. It’s his means of sending another bomb without hurting anyone physically. And so he’s going to do everything he can to try to disrupt this proceeding. I don’t think–I really don’t think he’s incompetent. I think he’s very competent, although very mentally ill. I think he knows exactly what he’s doing, and he’s trying to create chaos.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Dratman, what’s your opinion on that?

DAVID DRATMAN: I have no disagreement with the conclusion that Mr. Kaczynski is mentally ill. I have not spoken with Mr. Kaczynski, so I don’t know what his agenda is. I have listened to his defense lawyers, who are excellent criminal defense lawyers. And they believe that Mr. Kaczynski’s belief that he is not mentally ill and that he does not want any disclosure or discussion of mental illness is longstanding and heartfelt, and that he is acting sincerely in that belief. And that, of course, is part of his mental illness.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: David Jackson, what happens next?

DAVID JACKSON: Well, the judge is going to appoint some psychiatrist to examine him. The big surprise today was that Mr. Kaczynski agreed to submit to an examination by psychiatrists for the question of determining whether he’s competent to stand trial. He had, as you remember, refused to agree to examinations by government psychiatrists on the issue of mental illness. But when questioned about that, his attorneys said that he’s agreed mainly because he felt that he had no other choice in order to present his own defense without a mental illness claim.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And David, the judge made some decisions about what would be permissible in the opening statements. Tell us about that and what it indicates about what will be said.

DAVID JACKSON: Yes. And this is, of course, depending on if we have opening statements anytime soon. The judge basically gave the defense permission to show pictures of Mr. Kaczynski when he was arrested, which, as you remember, shows a very bedraggled, dirty, unshaven man, compared to clean-cut pictures of him as a college student, and the judge also gave permission to the prosecution to show statements that were highly incriminating related to other uncharged crimes in their opening statements. So both sides won a little bit in those decisions.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Dratman, any comments about opening statements?

DAVID DRATMAN: Well, the judge actually rejected the prosecution’s attempt to limit the defense’s presentation of circumstantial evidence regarding Mr. Kaczynski’s mental state and denied the government’s motion to limit that, which I thought was significant, and also allowed the defense to present other writings in the course of Mr. Kaczynski’s diaries and such that it may add to their ability to argue that he, in fact, is mentally ill. And that was–that was not surprising, considering the state of the law. What was surprising is that the government even filed the motion.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Mr. Heller, we have just a few seconds left. Any comments about what may be coming in opening statements?

DONALD HELLER: Well, I think if Ted Kaczynski is permitted to make an opening statement, I think when he’s done, there will only be four people in that courtroom that will think he’s not insane. That will be Mr. Kaczynski and the three prosecutors.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Thank you all very much.

[crimethink]

twisted story - his lawyers say he's insane, gov disagrees, allows him to fight the non-insane fight

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law-jan-june98-unabomber_1-8/

I followed Kaczynski very closely from when his Manifesto was published, until the Kangaroo Court convicted him. It was somewhat personal for me, as the "trial" took place in Sacramento, and Kaczynski's Manifesto had a great impact on me.

The Nigger "judge," Burrell, was no friend of his, and the persecution, the court-imposed public pretenders, and "the court" conspired to label him "schizophrenic," which is how they got the punishment they wanted: torture for life, no death penalty. Kaczynski wanted to die, both as a martyr and because he dreaded the sterile environment of a cage in Gulag. Someone who yearned for trees and mountains and fresh air can only suffer intrinsic torture in their concrete institution.

Kaczynski himself called the "diagnosis" a "political diagnosis," because they couldn't allow him to argue his actions were "sane." Targeted killings are "sane" only when conducted by the Executive Branch of the United States Federal Regime.


http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/08/us/kaczynski-can-t-drop-lawyers-or-block-a-mental-illness-defense.html

Theodore J. Kaczynski tried publicly to dismiss his lawyers today because they would not abandon assertions that he is suffering from mental illness. But the judge at Mr. Kaczynski's trial on charges that he was the Unabomber said the effort to change lawyers was too late and ordered that the trial begin on Thursday.

Also today, the judge, Garland E. Burrell Jr., ruled that the existing legal team can argue at the trial that Mr. Kaczynski suffers from mental problems, over Mr. Kaczynski's obvious objections. Judge Burrell said the lawyers, not Mr. Kaczynski, will control decisions about strategy concerning the ''mental status'' of their client.

After halting his trial with a last-minute objection to his lawyers on Monday, Mr. Kaczynski's request to the court came after a day of closed-door proceedings at which he agreed earlier in the afternoon that he would continue with the lawyers who have been representing him for 18 months and then changed his mind by 4 P.M., when the judge had called a public hearing.

In a brief statement he read from a yellow sheet, Mr. Kaczynski told Judge Burrell in a courtroom filled with reporters that he had just had a telephone conversation with a San Francisco lawyer, Tony Serra, who agreed ''not to present a mental defense.'' For that reason, Mr. Kaczynski said, ''I think I would like to be represented by him.''