Why Minor Threat is in Prison --
The Real Story

During 1992 and 1993, Minor Threat had been breaking into several Southwestern Bell central offices and other similar business. He was obtaining stolen AT&T 5ESS and System 75 circuit packs and selling them to vendors. In February 1994, his apartment was searched and evidence was found linking him to these crimes. In January 1995, Minor Threat turned himself into the U.S. Marshals after learning that they had an arrest warrant for him for Money Laundering in violation of Title 18 USC § 1956(a)(1).

In February 1995, Minor Threat pled guilty to the single count of money laundering. His lawyer, Joe James Sawyer, told him that he would get a 14-month sentence. His sentencing date was set for March 31, 1995 and was later reset to May 5, 1995.

On May 5, at the sentencing hearing, Minor Threat was sentenced to 70 months in federal prison with no parole. The United States Attorney (the prosecutor) cited Lamprecht's refusal to cooperate pursuant to the plea agreement for the increase in his offense level and sentence increase. In addition, the government claimed that he had threatened to ruin one of the police officer's credit ratings, which increased his sentence by 13 months.

In addition, the judge sentenced Minor Threat to three years of supervised release after he completes his sentence. The judge also imposed the following conditions of release:

If these restrictions seem ridiculous, that's because they are. Banning someone from using the Internet is a Free Speech violation and prohibiting Minor Threat from his career of computer programming certainly doesn't help to rehabilitate him. He is currently looking for a lawyer to help him fight these conditions in court.

After Minor Threat was sentenced, he talked to his lawyers about getting a sentence reduction of approximately one year by consulting the victims of his crimes so they could prevent future incidents. The prosecutor agreed that if he would talk to the victims and the military, the prosecutor would file a motion for reduction of sentence.

Minor Threat talked to several corporations and even to the United States Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI). He also talked to two security agents at GTE Southwest, who considered his advice on physical and computer security to be very helpful. Later he talked to a representative from Bellcore in New Jersey named Steve Branigan as well as Jeff Thorpe from the U.S. Air Force OSI. They talked to him mostly about computer security, cellular phones, telephone switch security, etc. The AFOSI man asked him about several other hackers, most of whom Minor Threat did not know. The few he did recognize, he had talked to only once or not at all. The two names he remembers them asking about are JSZ and Wing. Part of the agreement was that Minor Threat not disclose the fact that he had been interviewed by the USAF or Bellcore. So why is all this being made public?

Because the government has already violated the agreement. After Minor Threat completed his end of the deal, the prosecutor decided he didn't want to hold up the government's end so Minor Threat never got the sentencing reduction he was promised. This could be because the U.S. Attorney never intended to give Minor Threat the reduction or because of a letter the U.S. Attorney received from the United States Sentencing Commission about Minor Threat's case. (Read on for an explanation of this.)

Remember, Minor Threat was charged with money laundering even though he wasn't really "money laundering", but simply selling stolen equipment. Well there's a reason why the U.S. Attorney decided to charge Minor Threat with money laundering instead of interstate transport of stolen property -- because there is a sentencing disparity in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that allows prosecutors to get defendants a longer sentence than their true underlying crime would get. The guideline for money laundering begins at offence level 20, while the guideline for interstate transport begins at 6! If Minor Threat had been charged with his true crime, he would have gotten approximately 46 months instead of 70 -- a 2 year difference. The government also did this to Kevin Poulsen, another computer hacker.

The point of all this is: The United States Sentencing Commission has recognized this sentencing disparity and the fact that U.S. prosecutors are abusing it as was done in Minor Threat's case. In 1995, they proposed an amendment to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that would fix this disparity by setting the offense level for money laundering to reflect the true underlying crime. If this bill had been passed, it could have reduced Minor Threat's sentence by up to 24 months. Minor Threat wrote a letter to the U.S. Sentencing Commission expressing his support for the amendment and showing how the U.S. Attorney in his case abused the disparity to get a longer sentence. The Sentencing Commission apparently thought the letter had merit because they wrote a letter to Minor Threat's prosecutor, formally requesting why he chose to charge Minor Threat with money laundering instead of the appropriate charge of interstate transport of stolen property. When the prosecutor got this letter, he told Minor Threat's lawyer that he was now reluctant to file the motion to reduce Minor Threat's sentence due to his consultation with the USAF and other corporations.

This proposed amendment did not pass in 1995, probably because it was bundled with the crack cocaine amendment. The amendment is still on the books, but won't be considered again until 1997 because of elections this year. If you want to help get this amendment passed, you should write to your state senator. There is an organization called Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) that is dedicated to making the sentencing laws more fair. Contact them for more information.

So for now, Minor Threat's release date is March 5, 2000. If the amendment passes in 1997, his release date could be changed to as early as 1998.