Federal Prison Time Consulting LLC owner Dan Wise is also a federal prison rat. I found this out recently after he did an about face which got me wondering if he might be a rat because it seemed like something a rat might do. I looked into his background and discovered that he was an informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Then I found out he publicly disparaged someone who'd consulted with him in the past. He also admitted in a video to being a snitch per his own definition of the word. Despite all that there are still many defendants who'd likely consider themselves compatible with RDAP Dan.
REVENGE PORN DUDE INTERVIEW
RDAP Dan got a lot of heat online for granting Hunter Moore his first interview after Netflix released a documentary film about him last month called The Most Hated Man on the Internet. Moore became semi-famous in 2012 because he ran a website which allowed people to submit nude photographs of others without their consent. Moore got greedy when he paid a hacker to break into women's accounts and steal their nude photographs. Moore eventually went to prison for hacking. On the RDAP Dan Podcast, Moore said his only regret was not going "10 times harder." RDAP Dan was quickly criticized far and wide for giving Moore a platform. It didn't take long for Dan to put out a video apologizing and promising to donate the proceeds to charity. To add insult to injury, Dan chose the charity recommended by Moore's archnemesis Charlotte Laws. Dan also acted as if he had no idea Moore intentionally paid Charles Evens to hack over 40 women. I didn't buy Dan's explanation entirely.
As somebody in the gripe site industry which has at times had some historical overlaps with the revenge porn industry, I paid close attention when Moore was targeted by Anderson Cooper the same way I was the same year. The format of the episodes were strikingly similar (probably both produced by a blonde named Anita), but instead of confronting me over nudes I was confronted by women claiming to have been falsely accused of having sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Unlike Moore, I've never prescreened content so I couldn't be accurately accused of posting the information myself or approving it. I also allow authors to remove their own work which I feel shifts the responsibility to them. I don't host porn unless I don't know about it because when I see it I take it down. I recall seeing stuff about Moore's case on TV when I was in USP Victorville and made a mental note of it. Moore's role in the hacking was obvious back then (ex: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/revenge-porn-site-owner-hunter-moore-pleads-guilty-faces-prison-time-173179/). RDAP Dan claims he'd only seen the plea agreement and a handful of other documents before interviewing Moore. If that is true then the factual basis section of the plea agreement clearly describes Moore's culpability and should have been more than enough to put Dan on notice (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/127enUuYJWX6CMNEyEdchfyPudK14e1Yi). It doesn't say how many women were hacked, so Dan might not have known exactly how many there were (I didn't either until seeing the film), but I don't think that gives him grounds to say he didn't know what Moore did.
Hypothetical Scenario: If you check someone's paperwork and see a single count of conspiracy to distribute child pornography, you don't need to know how many victims there were to know the guy's a weirdo. While Moore was not charged with any sex crimes, that is besides the point. The point is that RDAP Dan had adequate access to all the information he needed for me to feel comfortable saying he knew or should have known Moore's role in the hacking. On top of that, Dan claims to have not watched The Most Hated Man on the Internet until after people blasted him for giving Moore a platform. For all I know he is telling the truth and he didn't bother to watch the film before getting an exclusive from the star of the film, but he should've. I would have far more respect for Dan had he simply explained that his podcast is about prison, part of that involves interviewing people who've gone to prison, and it is important for someone to give defendants a chance to be heard. I've always believed that those using the injustice system against others deserve to be subjected to the same amount of public scrutiny and ridicule as those they're using it against because supporting the system is usually a far more evil deed than whatever crime someone's accused of.
DEA INFORMANT
Thinking flipping on a guest like that might be something a snitch would do, I checked RDAP Dan's paperwork at PACER.gov. Wasn't really hard because all I had to do to figure out his full name was type Daniel Wise into BOP.gov and look for the one whose release date was at about the right time. Then I did a Google search for United States vs. Daniel John Wise which led me to a partial copy of his docket sheet (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4505734/united-states-v-wise/). Document 8 is his snitch card. Its a motion for a downward departure filed by Assistant United States Attorney Karl Irving Knoche asking that Wise receive a reduced sentence for "his substantial assistance to the
government in the investigation and prosecution of other persons." A copy of the motion is being uploaded as a PDF with this article. The motion was made under U.S.S.G. 5K1.1 which basically allows the government to let those that help them walk away from just about anything with a slap on the wrist.
Wise has admitted snitching on his podcast in the past. This discovery really burst my bubble because I thought I was about to expose him, but it turns out Dan exposed himself long ago in the video below. He seems to downplay his history quite a bit, probably because he knows that people are less likely to hire a prison rat as a prison consultant. In the description on YouTube included in the image above, Dan posted his definition of what a snitch card is, "a 5K1 is also know as the "SNITCH CARD"." 5K1 is a reference to downward departures under U.S.S.G. 5K1.1 which Dan admits to receiving in the video. At times he goes into great detail explaining why people might want to snitch almost as if he's explaining why he snitched, "you're saying what you got to say to get your *** out of hot water" and explains the meaning of the word "proffer" as used in his paperwork, "you're telling on people, that's the whole point of a proffer."
At about 10:55 he admits "I had a 5k1" but claims he didn't know what it meant at the time. Sounds like he could have used a federal prison consultant. However, just about everybody that tells in their first case says that. Often such people are allowed pre-trial release and offered a slap on the wrist if they help put someone else away for a long time. In Wise's case, he helped put away his former boss by testifying at his trial. Dr. Najam Azmat was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 11 years just for drugs (https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdga/pr/another-pill-mill-doctors-sentenced-over-decade-federal-prison). I met a lot of people doing more than 10 years on drug conspiracy cases and can't think of a single one who deserved it.
Even if Dan didn't know what a 5K1 was at first he should have known by the time he entered RDAP in prison. He certainly knew by the time he recorded the video in 2017 in which he encouraged RDAP participants to snitch because its "required." Hasn't he heard of obituaries full of dead people to tell on?
To his credit, Dan does a really good job warning people about the dangers of going to prison as a snitch. You can tell he is speaking from experience. He describes the dangers at medium and high security facilities with shocking accuracy for someone whose only been to a low. His program could benefit from the input of people that have been to mediums and highs. For instance, not all mediums and highs have politics against snitches. Many have politics, but they are not as bad as he fears. My first prison was FCI Sheridan which in 2013-14 was already known as one of the softest mediums in the country. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) took advantage of that to ship in as many snitches and sex offenders as they could knowing most of them would probably be safe there. Even when I was there the worst things someone like Dan would probably face would be being forced to live with another rat, excluded from the white TV room, not allowed at the good white tables in the chow hall, and at worst checked-in, but probably not beat up. I was only on the compound for a few months, didn't see many people get checked-in, and the ones that did were usually child molesters. RDAP Dan would probably be just fine at FCI Sheridan today. In 2018, I spent some pretrial time in the SHU under an endless string of threat assessments after mailing my recusal request to the judge at his home. I learned that yard is lost. Snitches, sex offenders, and other undesirable groups unable to walk most yards all have their own cars. In prison, the word "car" is often used in reference to organized groups of inmates. Undesirables are usually run-off or worse most places, but if those types get numbers they organize which is the reason for getting rid of them one at a time when they arrive.
If Dan ever goes to the USP I was at there is a good chance he will get stabbed. His 5K1 elevates him from being just another snitch to a full blown rat. It is something that would be found out about him automatically without this article because all new guys are investigated. Snitching exists on a wide spectrum ranging from more sympathetic cases of snitch activism (like Charlotte Laws) to full blown rats (like Dan Wise). When someone testifies at a trial against their former partner to save their own skin they're a rat. A rat is someone who squeals to save his own skin. Rats rarely squeal for noble purposes. They usually have to feel threatened by something like prison time or bad publicity. If he were just a snitch he wouldn't have waited until he got caught to finger his boss. Rats can always find noble causes to claim to have been in service of later.
JENNA RYAN
Whether or not Jenna Ryan is a former client of RDAP Dan depends on who you ask. Dan told me on Twitter:
"She never actually hired me. She refused to take accountability and continued making it worse not just for herself but other J6 defendants as well. We denied her as a client." - RDAPDan on Twitter (https://twitter.com/RDAPDan/status/1564240276407078913)
That was a surprise because Business Insider claims, "Insider has reviewed email and text correspondence between Ryan and the two consultants to confirm they briefly worked together." However, Insider doesn't say if Dan was ever retained or otherwise paid any money by Ryan. As someone whose used the press to promote businesses over the years, I'm incapable of trusting any mainstream news story because every story I've been involved with has included inaccuracies. Upon further review, it appears that Dan's work with Ryan was most likely limited to consultations.
RDAP Dan offers free consultations to perspective clients. Anyone who takes him up on that offer is a client as far as I'm concerned. I've had enough free consultations with lawyers to know that I'm considered a client the second I talk to them. Imagine if a lawyer told the press why he didn't accept someone as a client. That lawyer would be in violation of the law. The fact that RDAP Dan speaks so freely of those he's advised indicates to me that he probably isn't subject to the constraints of the Sixth Amendment. If he were a member of the defense team like a private investigator or a forensic psychologist then the only legal answer he could give the press would be that he doesn't talk to the press about former clients without permission. Not talking about current or former clients without permission should be his policy.
Moral high ground can be achieved with silence. Remaining silent in response to a public attack on one's character can itself be a sign of greater character. You might as well be saying it doesn't matter what she says because you're better than that. You have a code of ethics which prevents you from firing back against anyone you've worked with in the past. Just advertising that will make more people want to work with you.
WHO SHOULD WORK WITH RDAP DAN?
RDAP Dan is compatible with a lot of people. He explained one such reason in the video below. Drug conspiracy cases such as his often include a small number of primary targets that don't have the opportunity to rat and a bunch of lower players given the opportunity to rat. A lot of lower players do what Dan did. If you want to be a rat call RDAP Dan.
If you're on pretrial release, have never been to prison before, and don't know anybody whose ever been to prison, you might want to call RDAP Dan. I was denied pretrial release, so I had plenty of free prison consultants. Had I not been held without bail in violation of the Eighth Amendment, I might have considered hiring a federal prison consultant because I didn't know anybody who'd ever been to federal prison back then. I didn't live a criminal lifestyle, so I wouldn't have cared about prison politics because I didn't know much about them.
If you're charged with a white collar offense like tax evasion, insider trading, money laundering, bank fraud, etc. you might want to call RDAP Dan. White collar guys are often eager to meet Dan's "accountability" requirements. Even if they don't have an opportunity for a 5K1 like Dan had, he seems quite skilled in the art of presenting the court with a remorseful image. White collar guys would likely work well with Dan.
If you're a junkie looking to get time off by completing a residential drug abuse program (RDAP) call RDAP Dan. I'm nowhere near qualified to tell you much about RDAP. I can tell you that I spent a few months somewhere with an RDAP unit and people were not accusing the RDAP guys of snitching much. Don't know why and never thought to ask until RDAP Dan called snitching a requirement. There must be several ways to get through that without actually snitching on anyone.
If you didn't really have a serious problem and want to do RDAP anyway call RDAP Dan. Dan described the substance abuse "problem" which he used to get into RDAP as alcohol and marijuana abuse. I understand that some people lose control of their drinking and that leads to problems, but marijuana is not like that. If you want to know how to get into RDAP just by being a pothead that drinks (like me) call RDAP Dan.
I'm sure there are several other types of people that might work well with him. He certainly knows how to work the system to his benefit. Innocent people might be able to work with Dan provided he believes them to be innocent. I doubt Dan would throw someone under the bus he believes to be innocent. I don't think he would get hung up on not taking "accountability" if he thinks someone is truly innocent. An innocent person should be compatible with Dan.
WHO SHOULDN'T WORK WITH RDAP DAN?
If you're actively involved with criminal activity don't call Dan. If you're trying to cover up a crime or get away with a crime don't call Dan unless you can get him under Sixth Amendment protection. I consider him a major liability for anyone actively involved with criminal activity.
If you're an active gang member don't call Dan. Just associating with Dan is enough to get some gangs to label you a rat by association. They say, "if you f*ck with a rat you're a rat too."
If you consider yourself a political prisoner and are unwilling to legitimize the government by taking "accountability" for your unjust imprisonment don't call Dan. Dan is liable to accuse you of refusing to "take accountability" in the press.
If you're willing to claim responsibility for your crime but consider the punishment sought by the government to be excessive, you might not want to call Dan. I was always willing to plead guilty to a single count of threatening communications and agree to computer monitoring as well as a ban on alcohol/substance abuse. I'd already learned that sending threats in the future would probably be a bad idea, so I wasn't unwilling to let them monitor my email to make sure I don't send threatening emails or make sure I wasn't getting drunk like I was when I sent the email. They made it about a website instead, so from then on out I didn't feel I had much of a choice but to fight them. Otherwise it would have looked like the website was just uncharged criminal conduct. Had I hired RDAP Dan I don't think we would have gotten along.
If you want your lawyer to dig up every little piece of dirt he can find on your "victim" or anyone else supporting the government's case for the purpose of smearing anyone on their side in court, online, and in the press as a punishment for using the courts don't call Dan. Had I called Dan I think our relationship would have disintegrated just like my relationship with my lawyer disintegrated but faster and worse. I think Dan would have likely dropped me as a client and blasted me on his podcast.
If you're unwilling to submit your mind to government brainwashing or at least act as if you've been brainwashed don't call Dan. A lot of what he says sounds like it came straight from the mouth of staff members at the federal halfway house I was at. Most of those people were low skilled and did little more than regurgitate what the government told them to tell us. By low skilled I mean that while many had 4 and in some cases 5 year degrees they were almost always in worthless fields of study like social work. They're capable of outwitting most people they meet in the system, but when they encounter people they know to be more intelligent with more advanced skills unwilling to submit to them, and willing to fight back they often resort to ganging up on the person with excessive tattling, lies, and exaggerations. Dan does not appear to be someone willing to work with anyone unwilling to let some piss ant social worker tell them what to do.
If you don't want to take responsibility for the behavior of other people you might not want to call Dan. I recall Dan saying something when Charlotte Laws was on his podcast about one of Hunter Moore's associates not taking enough responsibility to be on his show. Prerequisites like that are totally inappropriate for shows about the injustice system. If he thinks somebody needs to take responsibility for something he should book them as a guest and tell them that. He shouldn't deny Moore' associates a voice just because they don't feel responsible for his website. The only person responsible for the behavior of Hunter Moore is Hunter Moore. Contacting Moore's associates is one reason why I categorized Laws as a stalker. She also followed him around in public wearing a disguise for the purpose of helping others subject him to unwanted contact. Such conduct fits the definition of the word "stalk" from the dictionary which means, "to pursue quarry or prey stealthily" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stalk).
There are of course many other types of people probably not compatible with RDAP Dan. Working with Dan could lead to increased anxiety. Even without his history many people would be worried about him being subpoenaed just because attorney client confidentiality doesn't appear to apply to him.
CONCLUSION
RDAP Dan seems limited in his compatibility capacity. By that I mean he seems a good match for a lot of people and a horrible match for others. If you're compatible with him then listening to and working with him probably has a good chance of minimizing your sentence. If you're not a match you're best off not bothering him. Whether working with him is worth the risk depends largely on what Sixth Amendment protections if any apply to prison consultants. If he can be brought on as an official member of the defense team subject to the Sixth Amendment then he loses the ability to legally tell on you for the most part.
NOTE: I have decided not to post Dan's most recent home addresses, phone numbers, and personal email address as a reward for helping people get less time. I've done countless snitch investigations over the years and this is the first time I've found one that may have saved other people more time than he gave someone. However, I do think he needs to adjust his figures to account for the amount of time his clients have cost others in order to save themselves time per his advice. If someone reduced their sentence by 5 years, but got their co-defendant 5 more by ratting per Dan's advice then the total amount of time saved in that case is zero, but Dan would likely take credit for reducing someone's time by 5 years when in fact he just made someone else do 5 years. Dan claims to have reduced peoples sentences by over 100 years, but I doubt it would be that high if he subtracted time served by co-defendants due to ratting. Still, it is likely that he could have saved people 11 years by now which is what his partner got. I don't want to discourage anyone from offering services capable of helping others get out of prison faster nor do I want to put Dan out of business. I just want to make sure people who're not compatible with him know the risks.