....I believe this is a bogus prosecution meant for intimidation purposes. Here is why:
1.) The timing. Hayes has been working closely with Ken Starr in drafting the indictments against Bill and Hillary Clinton. Hayes has indicated to a number of sources that those indictments will, in fact, come down before the election. Hayes himself would very well be a primary witness against the Clintons, in that his Fifth Column computer hacking team has generated much crucial banking documentation for Starr under a sanction from a high-level U.S. intelligence agency. It was such hacked bank records (introduced in after-hours testimony sealed under auspices of the National Security Act) which resulted in the conviction of Jim Guy Tucker.
2.) The circumstances described. The FBI would have the world believe that Hayes was stupid enough to talk on an open phone line (Hayes always assumed it was tapped when talking to me on that line) about this stuff, to someone he didn't know, then mail them incriminating materials with his own return address on them, and then arrange a meeting at his own home and place of business. Hayes may be unorthodox, even a bit crazy by our standards. But he is not stupid about this stuff.
3.) Blatant errors in the information. One that leaps out is the claim in the affidavit that 606-636-6900 is the listed number for the Becket Motel. Wrong. The only listed number for the motel is 606-636-6411.
4.) Motive. It is no secret Hayes and his son (a druggie) don't get along. There is civil litigation pending between them over an inheritance issue. But Hayes is not that hard up for money (he's worth easily a couple of million dollars) and no matter how mad he might be at John, it is utterly implausible that he'd put out a contract to kill his own son now after all these years of animosity, when he is on the verge of winning the inheritance case.
5.) Capabilities. If Hayes wanted John dead, he would have gone up there and killed him himself or could have called on any of a dozen loyal supporters. Hayes is certainly capable of killing. He has in the past. But I absolutely believe this is a blatantly political prosecution by a corrupt Department of Justice desperately trying to protect a gigantic illegal money vortex of arms and drug money that has compromised the highest levels of our government.
6.) The DoJ wants revenge. Hayes has been kicking their ass for the past year or more, partly through the internet postings of J. Orlin Grabbe (http://www.aci.net/kalliste/) and through Media Bypass magazine. He also submitted to a DoJ deposition in the Inslaw case last April that proved a major embarassment to the government. Not to mention the drubbing he gave DoJ in that 1990 computer salvage case (in which he bought used DoJ compuers with pirated Inslaw software on them along with witness protection files).
Hayes' attorney, I'm told, is one Warren Scovill, 606-878-6400. A detention hearing on DoJ's petition that he be held without bond is set for tomorrow at 10 a.m. in London, Ky.
In addition to the points.... [above] and Orlin's post, things that smell really fishy:
1.) The price is awfully cheap for a professional hit. And Hayes would not
use an amateur.
2.) The payment was to be after the job was done. Unusual terms in most
hits.
My personal opinion is that the FBI fabricated the audio tapes based on months worth of tapping Hayes' phone. (I'm sure that from his conversations with me alone they could pull together what looks like an incriminating string of statements.) Eventually they would have collected enough phraseology to concoct any sort of lurid scenario. You could wonder why they would take such a crazy risk. But considering the stakes involved (massive drug and arms payola that would be severely hurt if Hayes were allowed to continue) it was necessary.
The good news is that Hayes has a pretty sharp criminal attorney working for him now who has a track record of beating the FBI (and even getting an agent fired for fabricating evidence). I'm confident he will ultimately prevail in court. But the media slanders and damage to Chuck's credibility may persist and cast a pall over Starr's pending indictments. Evil abounds.
Regards, JN
Jim Norman, author of the preceding, has worked as a professional journalist for years, his last stint [for mainstream media] being a senior editor for Forbes magazine. The text of Norman's e-mail message has been slightly rearranged and edited for readability.