Alaska domestic terrorist Francis "Schaeffer" Cox claims he was kidnapped by FBI informant. And by "kidnapped" he means the informant did not give him a ride out of state to avoid a warrant.

Courtesy of the Fairbanks Newsminer:

The attorney for militia leader Schaeffer Cox argued in court papers this week that an FBI informant took actions “analogous to kidnapping” to keep Cox in Alaska and incite him to plan violent attacks against the government this spring. 

In a brief filled Monday, attorney Nelson Traverso said Cox decided to leave the state in February rather than get into a confrontation with state authorities who had issued a warrant for his arrest on previous, unrelated charges. But he said Cox was impeded by FBI informant Gerald “JR” Olson — referred to as confidential informant 1 in court documents. Olson had recently been convicted of running a fraudulent septic tank business in Palmer and received a lower sentence in exchange for investigating Cox for the FBI. 

“With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to see that CI-1 [Olson] was desperate and did what he did in order to create a situation where he would be the ‘hero’ and thereby benefit his own penal interests,” Traverso said. 

Traverso is asking a federal judge to dismiss charges of owning illegal weapons against Cox based on the conduct of the informant.

This of course is in answer to the fact that new evidence has surfaced which alleges that Cox was creating plans to kill government workers well BEFORE he ever even met the FBI informants.

So essentially the Defense's motion is to throw out this case because an FBI informant (Olsen) made it difficult for Cox to flee and avoid a warrant for his arrest. (How dare he!)

And that while Cox was apparently "kidnapped" by Olsen, the FBI was able to continue building their case against Cox. Even though (And get this) Schaeffer "told" Olsen to stop talking to everybody about his plans to kill law enforcement personnel:

1. Cox explicitly and specifically told CI-1 (Olsen) not to talk with Aaron Bennett and not to talk with a person who turned out to be the government's confidential informant CI-2 (Fulton); yet, CI-1 communicated with both such persons. 

2. Cox explicitly and specifically told CI-1 not to discuss a purported "2-4-1" plan; yet, CI-1 repeatedly discussed and actually pushed the idea, even after Peacemakers indicated that it was not a valid one. 

Of course this is Cox's version of events, NOT the FBI's.

There is another flaw in the Defense's request to have these charges dropped that show up later in the affidavit:



Finally, to the extent that the government's informant CI-2 -- a federally-licensed firearms dealer -- was indicated to be involved in any weapons transaction charged in this case, CI-2 and the government owed Cox an affirmative duty to ensure the lawfulness of the transaction, a duty which they breached. 

In other words, the government could not lawfully attempt to get Cox accused of a crime by providing Cox -- through CI-1 -- with any weapons that were not legal for Cox to possess when the government -- through its informants -- had led Cox to reasonably believe that whatever he acquired, if anything, would be done in compliance with federal law because of the involvement of CI-2 as a federally-licensed firearms dealer. 

The problem with this argument is that  CI-2 (Bill Fulton) is NOT a "federally-licensed firearms dealer." And in fact, if my sources are correct (And my sources are ALWAYS correct), Cox was informed when he tried to purchase the silencer and grenades, that they WERE NOT legal to own in the state of Alaska.

Methinks the defense in this case is starting to panic, and is now simply grasping at straws. 

Personally this is my favorite part of this affidavit:

The governmental intrusion was severe. Hidden video-surveillance is one of the most intrusive investigative mechanisms available to law enforcement. The sweeping, indiscriminate manner in which video surveillance can intrude upon us, regardless of where we are, dictates that its use be approved only in limited circumstances. 

In this regard, Cox -- like Jim Carrey's character in the movie The Truman Show -- has eventually found out that the intimate details of his private life, including the gatherings of his friends and family, were unbeknownst to him broadcast to an audience and preserved for that audience's own future use. 

"That's right your honor, this case should be thrown out because my client feels like a Jim Carrey character in a movie, and that is SIMPLY un-American!" (Which apparently means this lawyer has not been watching much reality television these days. Because buddy, EVERYBODY'S life is like "The Truman Show" these days.)

Clearly the only appropriate response to his very salient point would be, "Well alrighty then!" And then keep Schaeffer Cox locked up until the trial.