Sam Fairchild’s demand to sender of vile, graphic, and disgusting hate mail

From: Sam Fairchild
Subject: For (name withheld), (city withheld)
Date: September 13, 2015 at 4:29:07 PM MDT
To: (email withheld)

(name, address, and phone number withheld)

Dear (name withheld),

Before I refer this matter to the FBI, I thought it might be helpful to you if I share the language and explanation around the federal law that you are breaking in your repeatly-sent threatening and hate-filled emails to Mr. Michael Weinstein.  The law in this matter is clear:

18 U.S.C. § 875(c) states: “Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any  communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” 

From the wording of § 875(c) it is clear that the legislator did not require the element of ‘intent.’  Thus, it is irrelevant if the accused claims he/she did not have the intent to produce any injury on the victim; the mere act of sending the e-mail with threatening messages typifies the criminal conduct.

The holding in United States v. DeAndino, 958 F.2d 146 (US Ct. App. 6th Cir. 1992) confirms this statement.  In DeAndino, the court held: “A criminal statute such as 18 U.S.C.S. § 875(c) does not contain a specific mens rea element. However, such a statute is not presumed to create a strict liability offense, because mere omission from the statute of any mention of intent will not be construed as eliminating that element from the crime denounced.” In other words, ‘federal stalking,’ as this crime is also known, is not a strict liability crime but it does require prosecutors to prove that the accused committed the offense.  Thus, the ‘wording’ of the e-mails and the e-mails themselves are critical evidence in these cases.  Threats of injury must be found in the e-mails sent by the accused.  As the Court held in DeAndino, the words in the [e-mail] message must fully, directly, and expressly set the elements of the statutory offense.  For instance, in Tuason, the wording of one of his e-mails said: “Mulatto kids are ugly freaks that should be destroyed. . . The blackie should be castrated. I want people in public malls, photo shoots, TV studios, radio, concerts, arenas, restaurants, NBC TV, Bravo TV, parties, sidewalks, etc. to stare and stab dead any blackie with a white girl like “SS”. . . If not, I “HK” WILL BOMB THE PLACE.”  These words are a clear example of threatening words of injury under the federal statute.

Many other US circuit courts have followed this interpretation in DeAndino.  For instance, the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth circuit courts have followed this interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) as not requiring specific mens rea (mental state of intent).

DeAndino held that this crime requires three specific elements: (i) there must be a transmission in interstate commerce; (ii) there must be a communication containing the threat; (iii) and the threat must be a threat to injure the person of another.  

Therefore, according to 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) sending e-mails with words threatening injury is a federal crime and can be easily proven by showing that it was sent to a person in other state, showing the e-mail, and the wording the e-mail contains.  Thus, individuals prompt to explosive reactions should be cautions when wording their e-mail messages.  A simple ‘mistake’ in wording e-mails threatening its recipient with an injury, even if not intended, may typify a federal crime with a harsh imprisonment sentence.

There is a high likelihood that the Seventh Circuit, where the offending emails were sent from, would reach the same conclusion as the First, Second Fourth and Fifth circuit courts.  There is an equally high likelihood that the Tenth Circuit, where the offending emails were received, would do so as well.

One way to avoid my referral of this matter to the FBI and most-certain Federal prosecution is first for you to send to Mr. Weinstein a hard-copy letter apologizing to Mr. Weinstein and his family for the hate-filled email correspondence from you.  It can be mailed to me at (address withheld), and I will forward it to Mr. Weinstein.  Secondly, you will need to post the fact that you sent a letter of apology to Mr. Weinstein on your Twitter account – I will be following your Twitter account to ensure that you comply with this step.  And thirdly, you must not post on Twitter or any other internet-based account any further threatening or hate-filled messages, nor “take-back” your public apology.

If you will agree to do these three things, I will suspend my intended referral to the Federal prosecutor, in this case Josh Minkler, who serves as the US Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana.  Please affirm this by return email within the next 48 hours.  Please be clear — if I do not hear from you by then, I will continue with my referral.

On a personal note — you are 52 years old.  While I am about nine years older than you, I cannot imagine that you do not know better.  I suggest you move quickly on this.  Spending a significant portion of the rest of your life in jail because you cannot seem to manage your emotions seems to be a very poor outcome for this matter.

Samuel W. Fairchild

Mr. Fairchild,

     I never had any intention of harming anyone just went a little overboard. I don’t have any Intention of going to California either. Mikey Weinstein throws jabs at everyone else so I threw one back.  I will write a short letter and send it to you if that will help.


(name withheld)

Mr.(name withheld) — My conditions are clear in my earlier email.  It appears that you are quite wiling to comply so please:

1.  Send me a letter of apology address to Mr. Weinstein and his family — a sincere one, please — and mail it to me so I can forward to Mr. Weinstein.

2.  Use your Twitter account to certify that you have sent such a letter of apology.

3.  Refrain from contacting Mr. Weinstein again or publicly attacking him in any way.

I do not expect you to agree with Mr. Weinstein’s positions on a range of matters, nor do I expect you to change any of your views.  I only expect you to act lawfully, and you have not.

Thank you for your response.  I will wait for your return email confirming that you will do all three things, then I will expect action on your part on the first two conditions.  I will monitor both your Twitter account and other internet fora that you use to ensure your compliance.

And, I apologize for getting your age wrong in my previous email – I think I said you are 52, and in fact I think you are 47.  

Thank you.  Samuel W. Fairchild

Share this page:

Commenter Account Access

  • Register for a commenter account
    (Not required to post comments, but will save you time if you're a regular commenter)
  • Log in using your existing account
  • Click here to edit your profile and change your password
  • All comments are subject to our Terms of Use

No Comments

Start the ball rolling by posting a comment on this article!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *