Interview with WhosARat.com
There is a controversial website called "WhosARat.com," where informants and "snitches" are listed, and notes compared, by criminal defendants, and their attorneys. The site contains mostly reposted public information from trial affidavits, media articles, etc., but the site has caused some interesting waves. Such as outrage by some police agencies...and law suits. So, I thought I would find out what all the fuss is about, by interviewing its website spokesman, Anthony Capone.
Interview with WhosARat.com
By Kirsten Anderberg (www.kirstenanderberg.com)
There is a controversial website called "WhosARat.com," where informants and "snitches" are listed, and notes compared, by criminal defendants, and their attorneys. The site contains mostly reposted public information from trial affidavits, media articles, etc., but the site has caused some interesting waves. Such as outrage by some police agencies, an alleged warning from Miami's U.S. Attorney's Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council to its workers not to visit the site, due to the tracking of visitors' activities there, and law suits ( http://www.fedcrimlaw.com/visitors/punchltd/2004/08-30-04.html). So, I thought I would find out what all the fuss is about, by interviewing its website spokesman, Anthony Capone. I interviewed Anthony by email on February 4, 2006.
Kirsten: Why, and when, did you create this site?
Anthony: The site was created mid 2004. It was created to level the playing field for defendants so they could use it to gather info to discredit the informants that accused them of a crime or agents that arrested them. The webmaster learned first-hand how authorities will use lying scum to make a case and they pay these people ridiculous amounts of $, dismiss their pending cases, allow them to commit crimes, allow them to make up stories and then when they find out the informant is lying, they just overlook it, and continue using these people, and swear they are credible, when in reality, these informants are a bigger threat to society then any of their so-called targets. The Government has their Databases on the public, and now we have ours.
Kirsten: How long was it up before the police/authorities contacted you?
Anthony: It took about two weeks before several agencies started emailing us, often posing as the person who posted an informant profile with a request to remove that profile. The Feds also tried to hack into the site so we increased our security. Since the release of the site, the webmaster has been the subject of severe vindictive prosecution on unrelated charges.
Kirsten: What was your first red flag that authorities were upset?
Anthony: I would have to say it was days after the site was released. Several newspapers and TV stations ran stories about the site and the
authorities expressed their displeasure with the site.
Kirsten: So what is the status of this site? Are the authorities still hassling you? Do you have any prosecutions, etc. pending due to this site?
Anthony: This webmaster is experiencing severe vindictive prosecution on an unrelated matter due to the fact there is nothing they can legally do about the site.
Kirsten: Have you had to modify the site due to prosecution or state intervention? In what ways?
Anthony: No, the only modification made was when we decided on our own shortly after the release of the site to disable the "add a photo" option for the "agent" section. We are still considering whether or not that option is necessary.
Kirsten: When was the last time authorities asked you to do something?
Anthony: We do not speak to Authorities as far as email requests by authorities. I think it was last week we received an email from a person who said he was a DEA agent and requested the removal of a certain profile, and we told him what he could do with his request.
Kirsten: Have you had any activity on your site regarding the recent Eugene environmentalist round-up informants?
Anthony: I just noticed this profile and thought you might find it interesting... http://www.whosarat.com/preview_informant.php?id=Mjg4NTE=
Kirsten: What is the most visited area of your site?
Anthony: 1. The Informant Profiles 2. The message board 3. Our Store
Kirsten: What do you envision as your place in society with this site?
Anthony: As for us personally, we see ourselves as doing something that we truly believe in, to help others, and to shine a huge light on the Government's corrupt informant program, and I guess we envision the site as being an important information source for defendants and a place where people can express their 1st, 5th, and 6th, amendment rights to the Constitution, see US V Carmichael case law
( link to www.whosarat.com).
Kirsten: Why do you think there are not other sites doing what you are doing?
Anthony: I think it is because you have to be in a particular situation to understand the need for, and to dedicate the time and resources, for a site like this. Also, why would there need to be another site similar to whosarat.com? The site is designed as a global database that people from all corners of the world visit every day, and of course, most people would probably fear Government reprisal.
Kirsten: Do you ever get scared? Do you ever think of not running the site? What would make you stop? What keeps you going?
Anthony: No, fear has never been part of our vocabulary. This site will be on the net for eternity; nothing we can think of would make us stop. As for what keeps us going, it is knowing that injustice is going on everyday and this site will level the playing field.
In response to the Fed and State Authorities quotes and to many newspapers and TV stations, that say the site could cause harm, etc.: Whosarat.com was created for defendants and attorneys involved in
non-violent crimes to use to investigate their accusers. This will result in leveling the playing field of today's criminal justice system. Before whosarat.com, informants were merely un-credible fingers of accusation reaching out of the darkness. That scenario has seriously changed. Whosarat.com shines a light on these un-credible Informants who all too often tell outright lies, in order to receive a sentence reduction, or for financial gain. Whosarat.com is effectively being used by defendants to investigate their accusers or by members who want to help others investigate their accusers.
Whosarat.com is Constitutionally-protected speech because it fits within neither the "true threat," nor the "incitement" exceptions, to the 1st amendment. Law enforcement and informants can whine and complain all they want, but the bottom line is, whosarat.com is here to stay and it's destined to be one of the more popular sites on the net. If they don't like it, they can go pound sand.
I think it's pretty safe to say that informants and cops know that there is danger involved in that line of work, and it would be unfair to burden whosarat.com with one's career choice. In our opinion, the only potential danger that exists due to the site, is the danger of the government losing at trial, due to defendants using the website to gather information to prove that the informants and agents that are testifying against them are not credible.
add a comment on this article
add a comment on this article