RoR: Forum

Joseph Andrew Stack's troubles were perhaps not limited to his run-ins with the IRS. The FBI may not want you to, but you can judge for yourself.

Here is the article on Stack at Wikipedia.

Here is a link to his website.

Here is the message at that website as of the evening of FEb 18, 2010:

This website has been taken offline due to the sensitive nature of the events that transpired in Texas this morning and in compliance with a request from the FBI. To see an archived version of the original letter, please go here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0218102stack1.html. Please visit our forum if you wish to discuss anything related to this incident: Texas crash pilot left suicide note on Web site - embeddedart.com.

Regards,
T35 Hosting - www.T35.com

And here is the note which the FBI had removed from the web, along with some further reporting on the FBI's censorship at The Smoking Gun.

Here is the plain text in full in the dissent forum
.
(Edited by Ted Keer on 2/18, 2:36pm)

Post 1

Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 4:02pm

Did you see Glenn Beck today?

Post 2

Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 4:10pm

No, Sam. I hope Beck isn't missing, is he? :D Tell us what he said.

This Stack guy seems like some sort of anti-corporate Obamacare advocate whose complaint was that unlike Big Business and the Catholic Church he couldn't game the system.

I have posted this because of the FBI's troubling censorship.

Post 3

Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 4:21pm

I don't have a link to his particular comments but most of his hour was spent on how the perpetrator didn't have a discernable philosophy and that he (Beck) disavowed violence in such circumstances. We don't need another revolution ... we've already had one and we need to seek out leaders of character to get us out of this mess. Incidentally, I disagree with Beck in that he doesn't have a problem with debt. While debt may be viable for business transactions, on a personal level, debt is an encumbrance ... that's why it's called an encumbrance ... it curtails your freedom. Lovers of freedom should recognize this.

Sam

Post 4

Friday, February 19, 2010 - 8:32pm

Well, wha'dya know?

FBI never touched the site, and disputes they even requested to have it removed.

Server was crashing from traffic (ten million hits in two hours), crippling the owner's business.

Post 5

Saturday, February 20, 2010 - 10:35am

That's old news, Teresa, Anyone would have know this had he read Alex Melen's comments to which I refered you above, and no one claimed that the FBI themselves removed the post, only that they "suggested" that the web host remove the material.

Post 6

Saturday, February 20, 2010 - 11:56am

But no one bothered to get the FBI's side of the story. They're denying they made any such suggestion. Personally, I think Melen simply misunderstood what the FBI said to him (if they even called at all, it hasn't been objectively established they did), which was to preserve the document. That's their protocol.

Post 7

Saturday, February 20, 2010 - 12:35pm

Okay, so now the FBI, which would normally contact the provider to preserve the original file, didn't contact the web host at all?

Note also that the article to which you link does not quote the FBI spokesman as denying Melen's company was contacted by phone, only a vague statement of policy that such requests are not made. Also, Lawrence Delevigne's (of www.businessinsider.com) implication that Melen lied about an FBI call to justify taking down the statement based on bandwidth is disingenuous. Melen stated the bandwidth problem up front. He was entitled by the user agreement alone to remove the link, and he said he credited the account in order to allow the redirect to stay up.

Is there still some objection to the notion that a written request by the FBI stating what should be done and under what authority would be the proper course of action?

Post 8

Saturday, February 20, 2010 - 4:27pm

FBI denies they asked, suggested, coerced, forced, or threatened Mr. Melen to remove the site.

Melen himself whined about the problems traffic was causing, despite crediting the account an extra five hundred dollars. Melen has since removed all reference to the FBI from the on-line notice.

Post 9

Saturday, February 20, 2010 - 4:45pm

Did you get this from somewhere else new, Teresa? All I saw in that article you linked to above was a general denial that the FBI does that sort of thing and a repeated statement by Melen that he stood behind the claim that the FBI did call him.

Post 10

Saturday, February 20, 2010 - 5:31pm

All I know is that Melen made a claim, but I'm not prepared, or willing, to buy into it. Why change the notice if his original claim is true? What's the point? If Melen is trying to avoid controversy, he's doing a very lousy job. He should pick a story, then shut the hell up.

There's an article in the queue right now running with the conclusion that the FBI somehow strong armed Melen into taking that post down. The only evidence used to prove that conclusion is Melen's claim. Not at all sufficient, but that's what people are running with.

If you want to encourage that kind of fallacious thinking, Ted, I certainly can't stop you.

Post 11

Saturday, February 20, 2010 - 6:02pm

Teresa, you provided one link about this, in post #4 above. Following that link, there is a comment by FBI spokesman Vasys that says:

"FBI spokesman Special Agent Eric Vasys in San Antonio tells us "the FBI does not request that sites remove language such as being reported to be authored by Mr. Stack. That's not our area to do that."

On the contrary, Vasys adds: "In similar investigations, requests are made that electronic records be maintained for investigative purposes and not be destroyed or erased.""

That is manifestly not a specific denial that the FBI contacted Alex Melen by phone. It is just a vague general statement of policy.

So I ask you, is what you say in post #8 based upon some further or new statement elsewhere? Or is it just your restatement of what you believe Vasys's statement to which you linked in post #4 means? Is there some new news that you are aware of?

And, yes, I do see that Melen has removed his referal to the FBI from the link now up at the website. I do imagine it is possible that he is lying or had exaggerated the story. (That is why I specified here that I am going on Melen's version of the story.) But I have not read any specific denial anywhere from the FBI that they contacted him. If such a denial exists, I would like to know of it.

Post 12

Saturday, February 20, 2010 - 8:51pm

That's the way I read the statement.

Post 13

Saturday, February 20, 2010 - 9:11pm