October 2000 - cypherpunks-legacy

CDR: Re: why should it be trusted?
by Allen Ethridge 22 Oct '00

22 Oct '00

<fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param> On Tuesday, October 17, 2000, at 08:19 PM, Tim May wrote: <italic>At 5:50 PM -0700 10/17/00, Nathan Saper wrote:</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic> >On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 12:07:00PM -0400, David Honig wrote:</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic> >> Not yet. But I believe the UK takes samples of everyone</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>>> arrested (not necessarily guilty) of minor crimes, and some</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>>> US states and cities do or periodically propose doing this</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>>> or more.</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic> >The next question is: What do they do with this info? Insurance</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>>companies and the like use it to justify discrimination against people</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>>likely to develop certain medical conditions.</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>Are you claiming that DNA collected by the police is then given to </italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>insurance companies?</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>An audacious claim. Do you evidence to support this extraordinary claim?</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>I will be very interested to hear which communities, which states, </italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>are doing this. So will many journalists, I hope.</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>On the other hand, having heard that even getting a simple blood or </italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>saliva sample requires court action, I expect you are once again </italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>merely hand-waving.</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> In the UK? I heard that in one community in the UK, in order to catch a rapist or somesuch, the police went around collecting DNA samples and arresting anyone who refused. After all, only someone with something to hide would refuse. Of course, this was television. <italic></italic></color><italic>As for insurance companies "discriminating," this is what I hope for. </italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>Those of us who don't engage in certain practices--smoking, sky </italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>diving, anal sex, whatever--should not be subsidizing those who do. </italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>This is the beauty of "opt out" plans.</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> Yes, only the genetically pure deserve health care. And you are sure that the insurance companies won't opt you out when they get a good look at your DNA? <italic></italic></color><italic>But the first order of business is for you to support your claim that </italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>DNA is collected by the police and then shared with insurance </italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> <italic></italic></color><italic>companies.</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param> Actually, that's your claim. But I'm surprised that you'er so ignorant of cooperation between government and corporations. Maybe you don't actually work for a living. You are aware of drug testing in the work place, aren't you?

18 55

CDR: defaulting on US Dept Ed. school loans
by Tito Singh 22 Oct '00

22 Oct '00

Any suggested parameters or "recipes" for ducking under the govt's radar regarding school loan collection....minimal property holdings, shift belongings to spouses name, cousins name, liquidize and hide....etc... singh_to_me _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.

6 5

None
by petro 21 Oct '00

21 Oct '00

Mr. May: >At 12:14 AM -0700 10/20/00, petro wrote: >>>At 1:39 PM -0400 10/18/00, Tim May wrote: >>> >>> >>>There's also a very scarce compilation of "The Peace War" and >>>"Marooned in Realtime" which is called "Across Realtime." It >>>contains "The Ungoverned" in between the two novels. Good luck in >>>finding it, though. >> >> I believe the Sunnyvale Public Library has a copy. IIRC >>that's where I checked it out--but returned it when I noticed that >>it seemed to be just Peace War and Marooned together in one book. > >Which is what I said, with the novella "The Ungoverned" in between. I realize that: My point was that I *didn't* realize it when I held the book in my hand. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University

1 0

CDR: P/E 4.9, No Debt, 30% Growth Rate, adds up to huge upside with low risk
by mkooner＠nightmail.com 21 Oct '00

21 Oct '00

I am very pleased to let you know about a currently under followed stock which has experienced large increases in revenue and earnings in the last 3 years but very little rise in stock price ! This is due to manangement, which has been quiety growing the company but not promoting it. A company website is in the works by January. Check out for yourself The Churhill corporation (It is fully reporting exchange listed company not OTC BB) 6 month results 2000 - earnings up over 100% - http://www.msnusers.com/churchillcorporation/files/first_half_2000.html The Churchill Corporation - symbol CUQ - traded on Canada's largest exchange the TSE Current price 1.60 cnd or 1.07 US Currrent price target based on a 15 X P/E multiple last 12 months earnings: 4.95 Cnd or 3.31 US ( *** a possible gain of 209 % ***) earnings fully diluted taken from 1999 annual report and june 2000 quaterly 1996: $0.04 - 1997: $0.17 - 1998: $0.23 - 1999: $0.29 12 month period to jun 30, 2000: $0.33 Current book value 1.94 cnd or 1.30 US !! A chart from stockmaster.com - <http://www.stockmaster.com/exe/sm/chart?Symbol=C:CUQ> You can contact the Churchill Corporation at 780-454-3667 Bill Mackenzie handles investor inquiries and is the CFO. Shares in Churchill can be purchased from your favorite broker ( In the US allot of brokers require you to place orders over the phone for TSE stocks so if your favorite online broker doesn't have CUQ online you can still get CUQ over the phone) ***************************************************************** If you wish to remove yourself from this email list, please respond to this email or send an email to donaldmkooner(a)yahoo.com with unsubscribe in the subject line. Disclaimer: This email is for informational purposes only. The information contained within this email should not be construed as offering investment advice. Those seeking direct investment advice should consult a qualified, registered, investment professional. This is not a direct or implied solicitation to buy or sell securities. Readers are advised to conduct their own due diligence prior to considering buying or selling any stock. The author(s) may have positions in the stocks in the stocks mentioned. No stock exchange has approved or disapproved of the information contained herein. P/E 4.9, No Debt, 30% Growth Rate, adds up to huge upside with low risk

1 0

CDR: state lawsuits, geronimo and victorio
by billp＠nmol.com 21 Oct '00

21 Oct '00

cypherpunks I visited my former phd student sobolewski for advice this afternoon. http://www.mhpcc.edu/general/john.html On leaving his home - with three of his issues of the Minerological Record - Sobolewki said Did you know that Lewis [another of my phd students http://www.friction-free-economy.com/] is no longer with Daimler-Benz? He is now a vp with Kodak. But that won't help Kodak. Then I asked Sobolewski, "How do I get into these messes?" Sobolewki responded, "Don't ask that. Ask how do you get out of them!" We are, of course, living on the wild side. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/load1.html Please read about geronimo and victorio. And pass the link along. Morales and I did it. We filed on Friday afernoon. I attach and will post. None of us could have done this alone. Keep up-wind bill http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/buehlerpayne.html http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/ http://members.tripod.com/bill_3_2/ http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/ SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF BERNALILLO STATE OF NEW MEXICO CASE NUMBER Arthur R Morales William H Payne Plaintiffs v Robert J Gorence John J Kelly Manuel Lucero Jan Elizabeth Mitchell Don F Svet Defendants Complaint for Writ of REPLEVIN and Relief from HARASSMENT 1 Citizens Morales and Payne file pro se Freedom of Information Act lawsuit 97cv0266 against the National Security Agency in New Mexico District federal court on February 27, 1997. Magistrate judge Don J. Svet was assigned case. US attorney John J Kelly assigns assistant US attorney Jan Elizabeth Mitchell to defend National Security Agency. 2 FBI agents Moore and Kohl hand-deliver May 29, 1997 at 08:29 harassment letter authored by First Assistant US Attorney Robert J Gorence on May 19, 1997. Exhibit A. 3 01/28/98 Svet issues ORDER by Magistrate Don J. Svet granting defendant's motion to strike any and all of plaintiffs' first set of requests for admissions to various employees of the National Security Agency & to various employees of Sandia National Laboratory (see order for further specifics re sanctions & communication) [28-1] (cc: all counsel, electronically) (dmw) (7k) 4 02/09/98 Mitchell submits AFFIDAVIT of attorney fees by Jan Elizabeth Mitchell in accordance with court order [37-1] (dmw) BILL OF COSTS is submitted to US District Court on Jun 12, 1998. Exhibit B. On June 30, 1998 Mitchell places liens on both Payne's and Morales personal properties. Exhibit L. 5 Morales and Payne file WRIT OF PROHIBITION with judge Anotin Scalia on March 18, 1998 to halt attempted sanctions. Scalia does not reply. 6 On April 30, 1998 court order (docket #42) removes Morales as plaintiff in this case. 7 US Attorney John J Kelly orders initiates garnishment against Morales on February 2, 1999. Exhibit C1. 8 US Attorney John J Kelly and US Assistant Attorney Manuel Lucero file CERTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS ON JUDGMENT DEBTOR with US District Court on February 2, 1999. Exhibit C2. Morales notified of right to hearing in CLERK'S NOTICE OF POST-JUDGMENT GARNISHMENT AND INSTRUCTIONS TO DEBTOR. Exhibit D was included in the same letter as Exhibit C. Paragraph in D2 is quite clear If you want a hearing you must notify the court within 20 days after receipt of the notice. Your request must be in writing. If you wish., you may use this notice to request the hearing by checking the box below. You must either mail it or deliver it in person to the Clerk of the United States District Court at 333 Lomas NW. Suite 270, P.O. Box 689, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103. You must also send a copy of your request to the United States Attorney at: United States Attorney, District of New Mexico, ATTENTION: MANUEL LUCERO, Assistant U. S. Attorney, P. 0. Box 607, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103, so the Government will know you want a hearing. Letter in exhibit E Morales requested hearing. Letter in exhibit F shows that Morales protested when he did not get requested hearing. Government took money from Morales without due process. 9 Morales notifies US Attorney John J Kelly and US District Court Clerk Robert March of his request for hearing on February 12, 1999 delivered by Payne. Exhibit E. 10 WRIT OF GARNISHMENT is received at Sandia National Laboratories on February 17, 1999. Exhibit G and H. 11 Morales notifies US Attorney John J Kelly, US Assistant Attorney Manuel Lucero, US District Court Clerk Robert March, and Sandia employee Mary Resnick on February 22, 1999 DEMAND that garnishment proceeding be held in abeyance pending requested hearing. Exhibit F. 12 $625 is garnished from Morales wages without due process in Sandia pay period 02/12/1999 to 03/25/1999 and 02/26/199 through 03/11/1999. Exhibit I. 13 Payne pays Morales $312.50 for his share of expenses in NSA lawsuit. 14 US Attorney John J Kelly and US Assistant Attorney Manuel Lucero file ORDER OF GARNISHMENT for $1,793.56 signed by magistrate judge Don F Svet on April 20, 1999. Exhibit J. There is no cause of action before the court for such order of garnishment. 15 Morales and Payne file WRIT OF PROHIBITION with judge Anotin Scalia on April 27, 1999 to halt attempted unwarranted garnishment. Scalia, again, does not respond. But no money has yet been garnished from Morales' wages by Sandia. 16 On July 21, 1999 Rio Grande Title refunds Morales' $625 [Exhibit M] which was taken from escrow account from property lien being held since November 25, 199. Exhibit L. 17 Chief magistrate judge William Deaton is informed of the these and other illegal acts on February 26, 2000. Morales and Payne offer administrative settlement of these and other misconduct. Deaton is asked to respond by March 4, 2000. Deaton does not respond. 18 Citizens John J Kelly, Manuel Lucero, Jan Elizabeth Mitchell, and Don F Svet have broken New Mexico state laws by garnishing $625 from Morales' wages without due process. Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M. ARTICLE 11 Magistrate Court; Replevin Sec. 35-11-1. Replevin; grounds. 35-11-2. Replevin; special provisions. 35-11-3. Judgment. 35-11-1. Replevin; grounds. Whenever any personal property is wrongfully taken or detained, the person having a right to immediate possession may bring a civil action of replevin for recovery of the property and for damages sustained from the wrongful taking or detention. However, in replevin actions, magistrate courts shall not issue any writs of replevin or any other orders providing for a seizure of property before judgment. 19 Citizens Robert J Gorence harassed William Payne by Sending FBI agents to Payne's home to deliver threatening letter in Exhibit A. Don F Svet, John J Kelly, and Manuel Lucero harassed Arthur Morales by attempting to garnish $1,793.56 from Morales wages when there was no legal cause of action for such writ. Exhibit J. ARTICLE 3A Harassment and Stalking 30-3A-2. Harassment; penalties. A. Harassment consists of knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct that is intended to annoy, seriously alarm or terrorize another person and which serves no lawful purpose. The conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. B. Whoever commits harassment is guilty of a misdemeanor. WHEREFORE 20 Morales and Payne ask for their $625 taken from them without due process. 21 Morales and Payne ask for the $1,793.56 since this can be taken from Morales wages or file an property lien at any time. 22 Payne asks for punitive damages $300,000 from Gorence for harassment for illegally sending FBI agents to family residence to deliver harassment letter. 23 Illegal garnishment of Morales' salary jeopardized Morales' security clearance and employment at Sandia National Laboratories. Morales and Payne ask for punitive damages from citizens John J Kelly $300,000, Don F Svet $300,000, Manuel Lucero $100,000, Jan Elizabeth Mitchell $100,000 , and so that citizens and federal employees are sent a message to obey the laws they are tasked to upheld rather than abuse. 24 No one in the United States of America must be permitted to be above the law. Forward complaint to New Mexico Attorney General with recommendation for prosecution of citizens Robert J Gorence, John J Kelly, Manuel Lucero, Jan Elizabeth Mitchell, and Don F Svet for violation of New Mexico state laws. 25 Grant other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. I certify that I mailed a copy of this pleading to all defendants by certified - return receipt requested mail. _________________________________ __________________________________ Date Arthur R Morales 1024 Los Arboles NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 505 3451381 William H Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 98111 505 292 7037 4 SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF BERNALILLO STATE OF NEW MEXICO CASE NUMBER William H Payne Plaintiff v Sandia Corporation - Sandia National Laboratories American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation Lockheed Martin Corporation Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn John A. Bannerman Charles Burtner Lorenzo F. Garcia Michael G. Robles Carol Lisa Smith Defendants Complaint for Relief from DEFAMATION and HARASSMENT 1 Citizen Richard Gallegos gives documents in Exhibit A to citizen Arthur Morales. Morales gives documents to Payne on Saturday March 22, 1997. Exhibit A 4 show that the documents clearly refer to plaintiff W. H. Payne since his signature is affixed to that document. Payne had not seen Exhibit A documents before March 22, 1997. The documents contain false information. Release of documents like those seen in Exhibit A without written consent is a criminal violation of the Privacy Act, 5 USC § 552a, Records Maintained On Individuals http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/privstat.htm 5 USC 552a(b) , the Privacy Act, states, CONDITIONS OF DISCLOSURE - No agency shall disclose any record which is contain in a systems of records by any means of communications to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to who the record pertains, ... 5 USC 552a(i)1 applies. CRIMINAL PENALTIES. - Any officer or employee of an agency, who by virtue of his employment or official position, has possession of, or access to, agency records which contain individually identifiable information the disclosure of which is prohibited by this section or by rules or regulations established thereunder, and who knowing that disclosure of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully discloses of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully disclosed the material in any manner to any person or agency not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000. Further, The Privacy Act provides a civil remedy whenever an agency denies access to a record or refuses to amend a record. An individual may sue an agency if the agency fails to maintain records with accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is necessary to assure fairness in any agency determination and the agency makes a determination that is adverse to the individual. An individual may also sue an agency if the agency fails to comply with any other Privacy Act provision in a manner that has an adverse effect on the individual. An individual may file a lawsuit against an agency in the Federal District Court in which the individual lives, in which the records are situated, or in the District of Columbia. A lawsuit must be filed within 2 years from the date on which the basis for the lawsuit arose. http://www.epic.org/open_gov/citizens_guide_93.html EMPLOYMENT REFERENCES I. Generally In recent years the trend has become for employers not to give detailed or even meaningful employment references when asked to do so. Most employers today either give no employment reference information or merely confirm that the (former) employee worked for the employer during specified dates and at a certain rank or position. The rationale for the unwillingness to provide more complete or specific information is that employers must minimize their risk of exposure to workplace defamation liability. Generally, an employer is liable to an employee for defamation if the employer publishes a false statement about the employee that harms the employee's reputation and that is not privileged. Each element of a defamation action is examined briefly below. First, employers cannot make false statements about an employee. Employers can now be held liable for false statements only if they are responsible for the falsity. This means that the employer can be held liable for a false statements only if they were negligent in attempting to ensure the truthfulness of the statement. In other words, employers are not liable for a false statement if they were not negligent in their attempts to ensure that the statement was true before they published it. RISK-FREE HIRING: How to Interview, Check References and Use Pre- employment Testing without Triggering Liability PRESENTED TO: COUNCIL ON EDUCATION IN MANAGEMENT ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO JUNE 25, 1997 PRESENTED BY: DEBRA J. MOULTON, ESQ. KAREN KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 6400 UPTOWN BLVD., NE, SUITE 630-E ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87110 (505) 884-7887 _____ 7-1 Defamation Defined The test for defamation is not merely a statement that hurts one's reputation. Defamation is the publication of a defamatory statement of fact. When defamation occurs in written form it is called libel. When the defamation is an oral communication, it is called slander. In order to prove that one has been defamed, the New Mexico courts rely on proof of the following facts: 1. that there was a defamatory statement of fact concerning another (i.e. a statement, as opposed to an opinion, that tends to lower the employee in the esteem of the community or other respectable individuals); 2. the statement must be published; that is it must be spoken or otherwise communicated to at least one person, usually a "third party," other than the complaining party; 3. fault amounting at least to negligence (should have known it was false) on part of the publisher, or, if the employer is a public official, the statement must have been made with the knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth; and 4. that the statement was the proximate cause of actual injury to the employee. It is imperative that employers take action to stop all defamatory actions by their employees, even in the realm of horseplay, since there exists in New Mexico both criminal, and civil liability for such actions. LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT IN NEW MEXICO: A Complete Desktop Guide to Employment Law, ERIC SIROTKIN Butterworth, 1994. While it may seem obvious to readers of Exhibit A that both Sandia National Laboratories and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission got caught in writing violating both the criminal and civil portion of the Privacy Act and should settle, the federal government decided to fight in federal court relying on cooperation of federal judges to protect it. However, in this case the federal judge violated New Mexico state law in by mounting a campaign of harassment instead of administering a fair jury trial his zeal to protect the US government from liability. Therefore, on advice of Mew Mexico Federal Magistrate Judge Karen B Molzen and others legal remedy reverts to state court for hearing defamation and harassment complaints. See section 20 this document. 2 Payne brought suit CIV 99-270 against defendants and others on March 12, 1999 in US District Court for the District of New Mexico for violation of the Privacy Act, 5 USC § 552a, Records Maintained On Individuals. Exhibit B page 9 docket entry 1. 3 Magistrate judge Lorenzo Garcia presides. 4 May 12, 1999 Payne moves in CIV 99-270 for summons service by US marshal for defendants Larry Trujillo, R A Polansacz, and C A Searles. Exhibit B page 8 docket entry 12. 5 Garcia denies service in CIV 99-270 May 24, 1999 claiming that Payne can only use US marshal service in a in forma pauperis case. Exhibit C, Exhibit B page 8 docket entry 18. Payne never claimed he filed in forma pauperis and can, in fact, use US marshal service if he pays about $25 per summons. Citizen Garcia harasses Payne. 6 On 8/4/99 in CIV 99-270 defendants Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn, Smith and Bannerman file MOTION by defts R A Poloncasz, C A Searls, and E Dunckel |to dismiss this action against them without prejudice| (rd) Re:MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER dismissing defts E Dunckel, C A Searls and ... [87] Exhibit B page 7 docket entry 58. 7 On 11/12/99 in CIV 99-270 Garcia grants MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia granting defts' motion to dismiss this action against them without prejudice [59-1] dismissing defts E Dunckel, C A Searls and R A Poloncasz without prejudice (cc: all counsel*) (rd) (11k) Re: MOTION to dismiss this action against them without prejudice [59] Exhibit B page 3 docket entry 87. Garcia gives as reason that Dunckel, Searls and Poloncasz have not been properly served. Citizen Garcia harasses Payne. 8 Payne in CIV 99-270 files Docket entry 34 Exhibit D. Exhibit B page 7 docket entry 34. 6/8/99 34 AFFIDAVIT of William H. Payne to remove Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia from this action (rd) [Entry date 06/09/99] 9 Garcia falsely identifies Payne's AFFIDAVIT to remove Garcia as a "motion" and denies it. Exhibit B page 7 docket entry 35. 6/9/99 35 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia denying motion to disqualify (affidavit to remove Judge Garcia) [34-11 (cc: all counsel, electronically) (rd) [Entry date 06/10/991 Citizen Garcia harasses Payne. 10 Payne gives Garcia opportunity to correct AFFIDAVIT to remove Garcia. 6/16/99 37 MOTION by Payne to alter or amend order denying motion to disqualify (sl) Exhibit B page 7 docket entry 37. Garcia's refuses to obey law. 6/16/99 38 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia denying pltf's motion to alter or amend order denying motion to disqualify [37-1] (cc: all counsel, electronically) (rd) Citizen Garcia continues to harass Payne in violation of New Mexico state law, 11 May 25, 1999 Payne left for an extended business trip. Payne informed the court. Exhibit B page 8 docket entry 20. 12 On 06/02/99 in CIV 99-270 Defendants Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn, Smith and Bannerman file MOTION by Sandia defts |for sanctions due to violations of Rule 11(b)(2)| (rd) Re: RESPONSE [76] MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER [52] MEMORANDUM [24] Exhibit B page 8 docket entry 23. 13 June 18, 1999 Payne files for Motion for time extension of 90 days to answer Exhibit B page 7 docket entry 39. 14 On 08/05/99 in CIV 99-270 Garcia files ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia assessing costs in favor of Sandia defts and against pltf in the amount of $912.50 to be paid within twenty (20) days [55-1] (cc: all counsel, electronically) (rd) (8k) Re: NOTICE [55] Garcia was removed from CIV 99-270 on 6/8/99 and, therefore, has no authority to order sanctions against Payne. Citizen Garcia harasses Payne in violation of New Mexico state law. 15 On August 12, 1999 Payne files for writ of prohibition by certified mail with judge Antonin Scalia. Payne wrote I sued under the Privacy Act as a result of false and defaming documents about my self distributed by Sandia Labs and EEOC. These are seen at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/congress/8327/robles.htm Exhibit B shows that magistrate judge Garcia dismisses my air-tight Privacy Act Defamation lawsuit. Exhibit C shows that judge Garcia has the gall to attempt to assess me with fees. 2 I ask that you issue a writ of prohibition to judge Garcia to stay his August 5 ORDER ASSESSING COST IN FAVOR OF SANDIA DEFENDANTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF WILLIAM H. PAYNE because written evident seen at http: //www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/robles.htm controverts Garcia' s claims. Scalia does not respond. Garcia, of course, was removed from case on June 8, 1999 and had no authority to rule. Citizen Garcia harasses Payne in violation of New Mexico state law. 16 Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn, Smith and Bannerman file lien again Payne's and wife property on January 19, 2000. Exhibit D. Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn, Smith and Bannerman, knowing that Garcia was removed by affidavit harass Payne by filing illegal lien. Rule 11(b)(2) states Rule 11. Signing of Pleading, Motions, and other Papers; Representations to Court; Sanctions (b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,-- (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; Evidence in documents in Exhibit A clearly violate the both the criminal and civil provision of the Privacy Act. CIV 99-270 is not frivolous. Citizens Garcia, Smith and Bannerman law firm Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn harass Payne in violation of New Mexico state law. 17 Payne files DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL in CIV 99-270 on March 24, 1999. Exhibit B page 9 docket entry 3. On 03/17/99 paid the filing fee for this jury trial guaranteed him by the Constitution and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Garcia, however, judged case without a jury trial. Citizen Garcia denied Payne's right for jury trial and thereby harasses Payne in violation of New Mexico state law. 18 New Mexico state law, ARTICLE 3A, defines Harassment and Stalking 30-3A-2. Harassment; penalties. A. Harassment consists of knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct that is intended to annoy, seriously alarm or terrorize another person and which serves no lawful purpose. The conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. B. Whoever commits harassment is guilty of a misdemeanor. 19 Chief magistrate judge William Deaton is informed of Garcia's, Smith's and Bannerman's harassment acts by certified letter on February 26, 2000. Administrative settlement of these and other misconduct was proposed. Deaton is asked to respond by March 4, 2000. Deaton does not respond. 20 Magistrate judge Karen B Molzen schedules telephone status conference for Monday August 30, 1999 at 2:00pm. Exhibit E and B5 docket entry 61. Payne is in Pullman, WA. Conference takes place between 13:40 and 13:17 pacific daylight time. Defendant lawyer Smith is part of conference call. Molzen conducts informal discussion with Smith. Molzen points out to Smith that Molzen believes that Payne has a state defamation case. Molzen, Payne believes, says conversation is recorded. While the Privacy Act violation portion of this matter is currently being reviewed by the Tenth Circuit, the defamation portion is now being tried, as Molzen and others recommend, in state court. WHEREFORE 21 Order Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn, Bannerman and Smith to pay Payne $912.50 to satisfy lien. 22 Payne asks for punitive damages of $300,000 from Garcia for disallowing service by US marshal, failure to remove himself from CIV 99-270 after affidavit was file, ordering Payne to pay $912.50 after Garcia was removed from case, and denying trial by jury which Payne paid for and was guaranteed by the Constitution and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Garcia is engaged in pattern and practice of harassment to deny rights due Payne under the Constitution and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Payne asks for punitive damages of $300,000 from Krehbiel, Bannerman & Horn for allowing lawyers Smith and Bannerman to harass him. Smith and Bannerman have engaged in pattern and practice of harassing Payne. 23 Punitive damages of $1,000,000 each from Sandia Corporation - Sandia National Laboratories, American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation Lockheed Martin Corporation for the preparation and distribution of libelous and defaming false documents distributed without Payne's knowledge seen in Exhibit A. 24 Punitive damages of $50,000 each from Charles Burtner and Michael G. Robles distributing the false, libelous, and defaming documents seen in Exhibit A. 25 No one in the United States of America must be permitted to be above the law. Forward complaint to New Mexico Attorney General with recommendation for prosecution of citizens Lorenzo Garcia, John Bannerman, and Carol Smith, for violation of the New Mexico state laws on harassment. 26 Grant other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. I certify that I mailed a copy of this pleading to all defendants by certified - return receipt requested mail. _________________________________ _________________________________ Date William H Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 98111 505 292 7037 1

1 0

CDR: Stamp's news from Worldspain Online S,L,
by publicidad＠worldspain.com 21 Oct '00

21 Oct '00

1 0

CDR: KJOC lists anarchy symbol with occult
by anonymous＠openpgp.net 21 Oct '00

21 Oct '00

1 0

CDR: New crypto regs?
by Anonymous 21 Oct '00

21 Oct '00

[http://www.pscu.com/Newsbytes/2000/156920.html] New Encryption Regulations Take Effect On Today October 19, 2000 By Brian Krebs, Newsbytes. WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A., Published By Newsbytes News Network In the final step toward matching the European Union's recent liberalization of rules governing the export of encryption products, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Export Administration has published a final rule allowing the export of encryption products of any strength to 15 EU nations and eight other trading partners. The announcement cements changes proposed in July, when the Clinton administration said it would relax laws governing the export of powerful encryption technologies to allow exports of all information-scrambling products to any end user in the European Union, as well as Australia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland. The move, designed to match recent shifts in encryption export policy for EU nations, also eliminates the 30-day waiting period that had been imposed on companies exporting encryption goods to EU nations and other trading partners. Instead, companies will now be required to submit a "commodity classification request," and will be allowed to ship products without waiting for a review from federal regulators. Previously, companies could export "retail" - or off-the-shelf - encryption products to nearly any country, except those labeled as terrorist or high-risk nations, such as China and Russia. But for exports of non-retail products, US companies had been required to obtain a license before they can export to the governments of any other country. By contrast, the EU allows companies in its member states to export encryption products without a license to a set list of 25 countries, and makes no distinction as to whether the end-user is a government or non-governmental entity. The new encryption regulations to take effect today eliminate the end user, retail and non-retail considerations for encryption exports destined for roughly 23 common trading partners. For more information on the published regulations, visit http://www.bxa.doc.gov/Encryption/Default.htm Reported by Newsbytes, http://www.newsbytes.com 11:57 CST Reposted 13:59 CST (20001019/WIRES ONLINE, PC, LEGAL, BUSINESS/ENCRYP/PHOTO)

1 0

None
by anonymous＠openpgp.net 21 Oct '00

21 Oct '00

Subject: Photograph alteration CPUNK Last week a <NOECHELON>cannabis legalisation activist</NOECHELON> handed a posy of said plant, wrapped as if it had been bought in a florists' shop to Her Majesty the Queen. HRH accepted it as just another bunch of flowers, and the photographs hit the newsstands the next morning. As expected, all the papers had a different spin. However, none of the front page photographs showed a plant with flower. It would make no sense to hand HRH a handful of ugly weeds, and the guy who claimed responsibility referred to it as 'a pretty yellow flower'. This sent my bullshit meter into overdrive. Had the photos been doctored to distort the message of the <NOECHELON>activist?</NOECHELON> or merely "pruned" by the editor for one that doesn't advertise such horticulture to the masses? Is there anyone on the internet who is actively tracking forged/spun photographs, Photopunks if you will? I remember the storm here over *that* Elian pic. Perhaps this is in Declan's sphere of interest? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/

1 0

Re: RC4 - To license or not?
by Vin McLellan 21 Oct '00

21 Oct '00

Stefan Arentz <stefan.arentz(a)soze.com> wrote: > [...] I do not want to buy a complete BSAFE license. > It is too expensive and I only need RC4. This is apparently a common misconception -- at least it keeps popping up among people discussing WAP, SSL, CDPD, and PPTP-compatible products, even IEEE-compatible embedded systems -- so (in the spirit of All Souls Day) I thought to double back and post a correction here. Boo! If your business plan (or your boss, or your investors, or your customers, etc.) requires, or makes it useful and valuable, for your firm to license RSA-branded RC4 implementation code -- as opposed using to one of the many copyleft "ARC4" implementations in wide circulation -- you should ask RSA for a quote on a RC4 license for your intended app. <shriek> RSA licenses RC4 code separately, upon request. Always has, AFAIK. (RC4 is, of course, MIT Professor Ron Rivest's widely trusted, widely adopted, defacto standardized, variable key-length stream cipher. "RC" was initially only Rivest's personal designation for crypto project in development, as in "Ron's Code." The best known Rivest ciphers are RC2, RC4, RC5, and RC6. (RC4 was reverse engineered and anonymously published on the Net in September, 1994. The same thing subsequently happened to RC2. RSA Security, the company Rivest co-founded to market the RSA public key cryptosystem and his other cryptographic wares, later chose to patent RC5 and RC6. Patents for crypto remain controversial, at least on the Net.) The idea of paying to use a cryptosystem -- and particularly Rivest's RC4 -- is scary, heretical, and painful to some... but others reportedly find RSA's BSAFE implementation code stable and dependable, and RSA's prices and T&Cs reasonable and flexible. YMMV, but RSA does a huge business selling "high assurance" code to OEMs and other firms seeking to implement various crypto protocols and both proprietary and public ciphersuites. See: <http://www.rsasecurity.com/standards/protocols/protocols_table.html> Trick or treat? Apparently, even among IT professionals, it is necessary <sigh> to occasionally announce that RSA does NOT require an OEM or an enterprise customer to license all the BSAFE ciphers and protocols -- there are, mind you, eight distinct and specialized BSAFE crypto toolkits from RSA -- when all a poor Developer wants is RC4. Such is the depth of the FUD piled up around RC4 -- like tinder and faggots stacked at the feet of a condemned witch no one hates enough to burn. Goblins, gallows, and gibbets, oh yeah! (All Hallows Eve is celebrated in the US as Halloween, an annual children's festival held after dark on the last day of October. Children who participate are urged to distinguish between horrors that are real and unreal. The participation of adults in the rituals, unfortunately, is frowned upon.) RC4 has become doubly famous as "the cipher none dare name." Clank, rattle, clink in the Crypt. Oh yeah! While many can now copy the robust simplicity of Rivest's RC4 logic -- and ARC4 ("Apparently RC4") code is widely deployed -- RSA still claims and defends its registered "RC4" trademark (and the copyright on its BSAFE implementation code.) Which is, of course, why RSA-branded RC4 code is still so often bought and sold. <shrieks & screams> Personally, I don't think that is demonic or even undeserved -- but then, I'm biased. I've been a consultant to RSA for years. (And I'm a wicca'd man at heart. I think the poor witches got a bad rap from all the jealous priests.) Happy Halloween, _Vin Vin McLellan * The Privacy Guild * Chelsea, MA USA

1 0