Dear Friends and Patriots,

Have you figured out what the stochastic crime theory was created for? Like all legal theories, both good and bad, this one was derived to answer a need. If you think of it like that, there are some obvious things our Department of Justice is after that the concept of stochastic crime can answer.

Since 2016 we’ve watched dozens of efforts to demolish Donald Trump’s influence. He’s now damaged, but not out of the game. He’s now a target of stochastic crime theory. So are many movements and organizations in the country. Groups like Proud Boys and Oathkeepers will be much easier to demolish if the theory of stochastic crime is allowed to gain a legal foothold in any federal courtroom.

Just think how such a thing would change all of our society. We already live in a police state, where anyone who is arrested for a crime worse than speeding can see as many as 20 different charges levied on them by aggressive prosecutors. That’s the game now – overcharge defendants to ensure the prosecutors can either plea-bargain a targeted person into jail, or see them tried and convicted for something. Juries are not usually made up of sophisticated people. They’re more often than not made up of people whose reasoning tells them that anyone in a courtroom who has a dozen or more charges against them must be guilty of doing something bad. They might consider they’re there to figure out which of the multiple charges has enough evidence and which don’t. They might be told that the defendant has rights, and they are supposed to assume their innocence until such time as the prosecution can prove they aren’t, but most people like to think in simpler ways. If the notion is true that most juries have a pro-prosecution bias and are not 100% bought in on the idea of the innocence of the defendants at the beginning of a trial, how much trouble will they have with the concept of a stochastic crime?

We are in very dangerous waters. If stochastic crime theory does enter into the domain of the judiciary and is accepted as a viable concept, no one is safe. It truly means that any monitored conversation can be used as the basis of prosecution. All that’s needed are words that can be attributed and construed as provocative, then any subsequent crime that remotely fits into the pattern described by the conversation.

I’ll give a more concrete example. Two people are discussing the sorry state of affairs in Washington and are being actively monitored without their knowledge. One makes a statement like, “It’s about time to drop a nuke on top of the Capitol and fix all this.” A month later there is some kind of explosion somewhere near the Capitol Building. A record of the conversation could then be used to prosecute the people who were involved in the discussion. It’s true that to make a legitimate case there would have to be a more tangible link between the people conversing and whoever set off the detonation, but the essence of stochastic theory is that no direct link is actually required. The case would be argued based on the potential of influence. If one of the people in the monitored discussion is known to be a political activist and a public speaker at activist meetings and rallies, the theory holds that the person may have been overheard making similar statements in more public settings, which could have resulted in the influence of some unstable person – provoking them to commit an act of violence. It sounds convoluted and a bit too far afield to be believable, but that’s pretty much what DOJ is doing now.

A lot of our future rides on the near-term outcomes of ongoing prosecutions. A smart judge who wants to uphold the intent of the Constitution would toss any case based on such a theory, but not all our judges are either smart or biased toward the preservation of Constitutional intent. Many might properly be considered activists in robes. The reason we have tiers of authority in the judicial system is to mitigate the effects of judges who are on the fringes when it comes to judicial activism. Even then, things slip by. We should fully expect to see one of the near-term cases based on a stochastic crime succeed in a federal court. If one case does, then we have to watch very closely to see how that case fares on appeal. One day such a case may find its way to the Supreme Court. That’s when the Big Kahuna ruling will occur and we’ll know just how much of a police state we live in. Keep in mind that by the time such a case reaches the Supremes, it most likely has spawned dozens of other cases, many of which will have seen judgments for the prosecution and the incarceration of people for exercising their right of free speech.

Stochastic crimes are crimes of thought and speech, not action. They are crimes indicated by probability of intent and probability of influence of a subsequent crime. They are not crimes based on tangible evidence, but solely on statistical probability.

When the first successful stochastic crime prosecution wraps up you know the next target of DOJ may be Donald Trump. He has to be brought down one way or another, and this is an almost fool-proof way, assuming the theory can prevail in court. DOJ isn’t interested in whether or not any of it can survive a higher court challenge. They just need one win to prove the concept has legs, then they’ll go for it. An appeal can take a long time. How much time do you think they need? The right answer is: not much.

Beyond Donald Trump, who seems an obvious target? The stochastic crime theory can easily be brought to bear on any organization or person DOJ perceives as a threat to the status quo they support. “Any” means any.

This weekend I heard DOJ is poised to arrest over 1,000 more people on J6 -related charges. The vast majority of those people were not in the Capitol Building on 6 January 2021. It may well turn out a significant number of new arrests will be people who weren’t in Washington that day. What this could suggest is the new round of arrests will be based on stochastic crime theory – they’re people the DOJ considers “influencers,” people whom the DOJ will claim were influential in the commission of crimes that have are alleged to have occurred on that day. They’re mostly people whom DOJ’s statisticians show are likely to have influenced events of that day.

There is a very ironic twist to all this, beyond the obvious totalitarian intent. Think of all the efforts that have gone into trying to prove without a doubt that the election of 2020 was stolen from Donald Trump. What is the basis of almost all of those efforts? The answer – statistical analysis. That’s why none of it has ever been allowed to see a courtroom. The courts always rule that statistics can’t be used as evidence. There must be an actual crime proven, with actual evidence and/or witnesses. Statistics alone cannot prove a causal link. And, yet, today the courts are poised to allow DOJ to use almost the very same basis to prosecute people for crimes they played no part in. What that tells us is – crimes can be charged and statistics be used to bolster the charges if the plaintiff is the federal government, but otherwise won’t be allowed into a court.

There is no equality under the law. All pretenses of such equality are now a thing of the past. The law is now a cudgel used to control us; to keep us in line. It’s no longer the means of the citizen to achieve justice. True justice is now a dying thing.

There once was a thing called The Constitution of the United States of America. It was real and was revered as a near-holy document. It was something we looked to for protection from any abuse by our government. Today, it’s just a faded piece of paper that is often referred to by legislators and judges as an impediment to “progress.” Today our government has almost unlimited power over us, and it makes sure we know it.

We only have one power that’s truly left to us. That’s the power of our voices to shout “NO! I WILL NOT COMPLY!”

In Liberty,

Steve