December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Petty Civil Disobedience
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: jamesd(a)echeque.com Major problem here is that ten million horny geeks are likely to bring your server to its knees, but if one only has one image, and it is moderately small, say thirty thousand bytes, perhaps the flood would taper off eventually. ................................................................................... Here James has stated the crux of the problem in its basic, elementary form. Why cannot legislators, the courts, and all those socially responsible individuals promoting the CDA and their other complaints against indecency recognize the obvious: that the problem of the presence of (and the success of) alarmingly objectionable material on the internet is all due to the existence of all those "ten million horny geeks", who en masse can actually "bring servers to their knees". I think this is a Male vs Male problem, and personally I think the mature and wise men of the world should take the case in hand and deal with it on a Man-to-Man basis. Or, they could just adopt Assassination Politics and do away with all those "other people's" (horny) internet-addicted male children. (Ha-ha. Really, Jim - any "democratic society" where one group elects a governor and another group votes to to shoot that person down sounds more like a Bosnian/Serv "society". It wouldn't make sense to become a member of such a disfunctional, self-defeating group of misfits in the first place.) .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Cryptanalysis
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:37 AM 3/10/96, Adam Shostack wrote: >Timothy C. May wrote: > >| cryptanalysis. (Not to sound harsh to Allen, but why would anyone ask here >| on the list for recommendations to such a standard subject when Schneier, >| Garfinkel, Denning, etc. all have books listed?) > > Niether Schneier nor Garfinkel really talk about analysis. >The only book I can think of is Biham's "Cryptanalysis of the DES," >and thats on a single technique. I said "....all have books listed," not that they are textbooks on cryptanalyis. My point was that Schneier, for example, has extensive bibliographic pointers. For example, and relevant to another recent thread, Ref. 355 (1st Ed.) is to Friedman's "The Index of Coincidence and Its Applications in Cryptography," 1920. And more Friedman, and Biham, and even reference to our very own Bob Baldwin's Crypt Breakers Workbench (dare I point out that this is probably a very educational tool for those seeking to play with cryptanalysis?). Likewise, Garfinkel gives a bunch of pointers. (Not that I hold it out as a textbook on crypto, but it's one of several recent semi-popular crypto books.) (And in recent days there have been pointers to the Aegean Park Press series of books, available at "Computer Literacy" (http://www.clbooks.com/) and the database may be browsed, books ordered, etc.) (One more note. The question that came up recently about "does anyone know what the "index of coincidence" is?" is readily answered with Alta Vista. More than two dozen hits, including definitions, papers, homework assignments, etc. The point being that between the Web, search engines, archives, FAQs, searchable library catalogs and retail bookstore databases, and the many hundreds of books and papers listed in Schneier, there is no reason people need to say they "can't find anything.") > I don't know of any books on 'applied cryptanalysis.' The >public knowledge is all in the heads of a few practitioners, and the >papers they've written. > I think there's no single book on cryptanalysis for the various reasons I've mentioned recently. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: rhetorical trickery
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri(a)netcom.com> wrote: > >> but I have a question: how did they know it was his diary? > > > >If I remember some earlier discussion about that case from a few years > >ago, the file was called "diary.pgp". > > how did they know it was *his* diary? Well, nobody *knows*. But if you've got a file called diary.pgp on your hard drive, chances are it's a diary of some sort. It's a reasonable guess. Whether there's anything incriminating in it for him or anyone else is another matter, of course. Rob. --- Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in quotes) to <WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com> for a copy of my PGP key.

2 1

Re: Leahy bill nightmare scenario?
by Dan Weinstein 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 9 Mar 96 at 9:26, you wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > At 12:19 PM 3/8/96 -0800, Dan Weinstein wrote: > > > >> Second, if what they're charging is the hindrance of an > >> felony investigation, it isn't clear to me why they would be > >> limiting the charging of that "crime" to only those actually who > >> have committed a felony. (logic isn't the normal mode of thought > >> for a government employee, you realize.) > > > >I agree with your concerns here, but I find it hard to believe that > > the courts would allow a broader interpretation. > > Unfortunately, what you find "hard to believe" I find easy to > believe. Remember, if this bill is passes, it doesn't merely affect > YOU, it affects ME. So I suggest the burden of proof is on YOU to > show that these provisions aren't going to be maliciously > interpreted by the courts. Burden of proof? Sorry, I do not have to justify my views to anyone. I am trying to have a reasonable discussion of this issue, thus, the "burden of proof" lies equal on each of us. > >> Third, all they have to do is to "suspect" the person of a > >> felony, and a > >> "felony investigation" starts. That would presumably make him > >> guilty of the Leahy bill's provision, regardless of whether he is > >> actually participating in the crime supposedly being > >> investigated. > > > >Here you are dead wrong, the bill specifically states: "in > >furtherance of a felony." Its like those laws that let them charge > >someone with murder in the first if someone dies while you are > >commiting another felony. They must prove the original felony > >before they can get you on the murder one. The real purpose of > >this provision, as I read it, is to give longer sentences to > >criminals that use crypto. > > I'm not a lawyer, but I assume neither are you. Please explain the > LEGAL DEFINTION of "in furtherance of a felony." If you can't, then > you simply don't know how far they will go. And you're depending on > the reasonableness of the government for the interpretion. True, I am not a lawyer. I would like to hear from one of the lawyers on the list for a more deffinitively. Since you also admit you are not a lawyer, I do not accept your opinion as superior to mine. I was pointing it out as something that I believed you had missed. I find it hard to believe that anyone can further a felony when their is no felony. In addition, this is VTW's interpretation based on the analysis that they have posted to their home page. I would presume that they were using lawyers to analyze the bill. > >> Fourth, I gave what I considered to be a clear example of the > >> hypothetical misuse of an encrypted remailer by the cops, one > >> that would arguably make the remailer operator guilty of some > >> "reasonable" anti-kiddie-porn statute. At that point, _he_is_ > >> the target of the investigation. Unless you can show that this > >> kind of action by the government is impossible, I consider it to > >> be not merely possible but almost certain to occur. > > > >Again, the problem I see with your scenario is that I don't believe > > that the courts will interpret it that way. > > What you think is irrelevant. Most people probably didn't realize > what the government did in the Amateur Action BBS case was "legal," > either. But they did it anyway. Yes, this case was certainly a travesty. The thing about it was that it violated the law. Their actions took place in California, but they were tried in Tennessee. This is a violation of U.S. law. Again, this is my non-professional opinion, but I have heard several professionals proclaim that the governments actions seriously violated its own laws. If your point is that the government does not obey its own laws, then all I can say is that if that is how you feel then why oppose the bill? Won't they end up doing what they want anyway? > > > My interpretation is that > >if they serve a warrent and I don't decrypt for them and they can > >prove a felony, then I will be subject to the listed punishment. > > Are you assuming that you have the key? Remember, if you run an > encrypted anonymous remailer, and assuming you do it honestly, you > won't be keeping records as to the source of the note. > > Thus, if they "serve a warrant" and you CAN'T decrypt the message > (or tell them where it came from) then why aren't you already > guilty? Remember, the wording of the proposed law doesn't require > that you have full knowledge of the crime involved, merely that you > act "in furtherance" of it... If you don't possess the key, but > you explicitly ran your remailer so that you never it, just so you > couldn't relinquish it, you have structured your operation too > thwart any investigations. You are ALREADY guilty. This may not > sound reasonable, but the government no longer (if it ever did) > considers "reasonableness" to be an impediment to their actions. > I don't but this. If I am a reporter if I receive an anonymous tip, a court could order me to tell who my source was, but I couldn't and they couldn't do anything about it unless they could prove that I knew who the source was. If I knowingly aranged for the source not to reveal himself to me, could I them be charged with obstruction of justice or contempt of court? Again it is my non-profesional opinion, but I really doubt this. Comment from a lawyer would be appreciated. > > >> Fifth, it isn't clear what amount of knowledge is necessary to > >> "trigger" this clause, especially in its current flawed state. > >> Since ISP's and encrypted remailers might know, in general, that > >> their systems can and probably are being used for SOME criminal > >> activity, even if they can't identify it or the user, or decrypt > >> it, etc, a broad interpretation of the resulting law could easily > >> de-facto prohibit any business practices (i.e., allowing users to > >> use encryption) that prevents full-scale monitoring and/or > >> tracing. > > > >I disagree, it states you must "willfully endeavor" to use the > >encryption as a means of obstructing the investigation. To me, > >this means that it is the motivation for using the encryption. > > Question: What, exactly, is the motivation of a person running an > anonymous remailer? His motivation is clear: To allow people to > send anonymously untraceable messages. Assuming he's of ordinary > levels of intelligence or beyond, he is aware that somebody may some > day use his system for illegal purposes. You're going to have to > explain why a court _CAN'T_ interpret this as being in violation of > the law. > If I rent cars, someone might one day use a car rented from me in a robbery. Does that make my an accessary? NO. > > > If I set > >up an encrypting remailer for the purpose of allowing free exchange > > of ideas, I don't believe I would be liable under this law. > > Your optimism is touching. It is also vastly misguided. If you think I am optimistic, you must think just about everyone is an easy dupe. If I do not quite reach your level of paranoia, I apologize; I will try to get to where I distrust everyone like you. Or are you just plotting to make me paranoid? > >The > >only way I could see a remailer charged under this is if he had > >solid evidence that a specific user was violating the law, and took > >no action. > > Gee, I wish you were right, but my experience with government thugs > says that they will do anything they think they can get away with. > Their is certainly A LOT of that with in our government, but to claim everyone in the government is a jack-booted thug is just too far over the top for me. (Yes, yes I realize you think this is niave.) > > >> This is only the beginning of the problems with this section. If > >> you can explain why nothing I've described could possibly occur, > >> I welcome a contrary explanation. > > > >I see some real problems too, but I do not see the problems with > >this provision to be enough to condemn the entire bill. > > I don't "condemn the entire bill." I would, however, reject the > entire bill if that provision remains. And morever, if we make a > serious attempt to have it removed, the more they resist removing it > the more we should insist it go. I don't want it removed, I think it is an important bone to through to those in the middle. I would like the phrasing tightened up so that it could only be used against those that deserve it. > >I would like to > >see this portion of the bill ammended to make it clear that only > >those actually involved in commiting the felony would be held > >responsible. > > There would still be a problem. What's the definition of "actually > involved in committing the felony"? Are you aware, for example, > that manufacturers of small plastic screw-top vials have been > prosecuted and convicted simply because their vials could be used to > hold small quantities of drugs such as cocaine and crack? This was > a case from a few years back, BTW. I wish I could remember the > cite. I was not proposing that exact language, I am not a lawyer and don't imagine I could come up with the bullet-proof wording that is required. > If you're not aware of these things, WAKE UP! Your optimism > disgusts me, because it is entirely unrealistic and based on a > rose-colored-glasses view of the government. I am not aware of the vial case; I certainly would find such a thing interesting to read. If this was what happened, and laws exist that allow this, then we ought to repeal those laws, but I don't see the baring that has on this case; I have already said that they should narrow the language so that it will not be used to the ridiculous extream. > >> But I would also ask this: Why, exactly, do we need this > >> section? We've already been told that the opponents of this bill > >> will fight it tooth-and-nail under its current wording; if that's > >> the case then the presence of this section is inadequate to > >> appease their unhappiness. Therefore, we shouldn't include it in > >> the bill at all; it does no good. > >> > >> Any explanations, Dan? > > > >You are talking about the fringe, this, I think, was added as an > >attempt to bring in those that are in the middle. > > Why would "those that are in the middle" object to a bill which is > little more than a re-statement of rights we already believe we > have?!? I am not talking about reality; I am talking about what they can tell the voters if they are beat up over passing such a bill. You seem to over rate the average voters grasp of the issues. It doesn't matter that the bill really creates or diminishes crime, it is how the voters can be made to perceive it. > > That is, Those > >that see the need to prevent the use of encryption as a means of > >obstructing justice, but feel that we should also have a right to > >privacy. > > There is no viable middle ground here. Any tool can be abused. > If that is true, than you are left with those that are the oppressed and the jack-booted thugs. I do not believe that the only motivation of those that are opposed to strong encryption is to oppress me. Many are trying to do what they think is right, this provision is their to give those that are tetering between the two options an easy way to move to our side. > > > To say that there is no delema here is ridiculous, crime is > >a serious problem that we are already having a terrible time > >dealing with. > > On the contrary, my opinion is "The _government_ is a serious > problem that we are already having a terrible time dealing with." > Fortunately, I've found a solution, and the government is trying as > hard as it can to prevent it (and "crypto-anarchy" in general) from > taking root. > Good premise, now if you could sell that premise to everyone in Congress than your right this provision is useless. Unfortunately, I don't think you will have much luck with this. > > > I think Leahy realizes that this provision will be about as > >useful as the "use a gun, go to jail" laws, but wants to give those > > in the middle to say that they bill will help prevent crime. > > Ha ha! That's rich! There is no reason that a "pro-encryption" > bill has to contain any general "anti-crime" clauses. The average > person is afraid of burglars, muggers, murderers, rapists, car > thieves. When is the last time the average person was the victim of > a crime whose investigation could be "thwarted" by the use of > encryption? If you can't think of an example, you've just proved my > point: This provision is entirely irrelevant to the average citizen > (at least in a "positive" way) and can't be considered a "win" for > him. You talk about my being naive, this takes the cake. Do you really believe that any pro-crypto bill could make it through Congress with out some sort of anti-crime clause? > >> Jim Bell > >> jimbell(a)pacifier.com > >> Dan Weinstein djw(a)vplus.com http://www.vplus.com/~djw PGP public key is available from my Home Page. All opinions expressed above are mine. "I understand by 'freedom of Spirit' something quite definite - the unconditional will to say No, where it is dangerous to say No. Friedrich Nietzsche

1 0

Re: Vexatious Litigants (was: SurfWatch)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: IN%"janzen(a)idacom.hp.com" "Martin Janzen" 9-MAR-1996 09:48:42.59 >>ObCrypto, sort of: What if the page were retrieved through an HTTP >>proxy which, unbeknownst to the author (and the filtering service/SW), >>deliberately removes or alters the PICS-Label or other rating >>information? Sure, you could probably write http://www.g-rated.com/. At least with movie ratings, the MPAA has trademarked the G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17 ratings so that producers can't self-rate their own movies (though they can self-rate them as X.) But you could delete the ratings. Presumably, almost nobody in Europe is going to add these silly Yankee rating labels to their web pages, except a few commercial content providers who want to sell advertising or services into markets that block un-rated web pages. So schoolkids behind rating-mandatory sites will have to ask their teachers why the "World-Wide-Web" is just American --- "It's got All 50 States, Johnny!" <Exonive deleted>! >> Must Web authors now add a digital signature to each page (including its rating >> info), to prevent tampering? Tamper-proofing is a far more general issue than just ratings. Most of the tampering today is either political protest (the see-your- favorite-web-pages-after-censorship site), quasi-silliness (the Great Web Canadianizer, eh?), or advertising addition from commercial sites or deletion from de-commercialization software. Imagine if your movie rating web page gets linked up by some studio-owned web site (www.disney.not/reviews/siskel+ebert/Rocky23 says "Two Thumbs Up!" "Rave!") Or your stock picking service gets arbitraged a bit on fast.make.money.com. Or the ExonOnLine webserver starts deleting all links to unrated pages from pages it serves. If you don't need it now, you'll need it soon enough. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 pager 408-787-1281 # "At year's end, however, new government limits on Internet access threatened # to halt the growth of Internet use. [...] Government control of news media # generally continues to depend on self-censorship to regulate political and # social content, but the authorities also consistently penalize those who # exceed the permissable." - US government statement on China...

1 0

Re: Leahy's guillotine.
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Leahy et al.: > Whoever willfully endeavors by means of encryption to obstruct, > impede, or prevent the communication of information in furtherance > to a felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, > to an investigative or law enforcement officer shall... <Exonive deleted>! Let's look at the word "willfully". Among other things, it implies knowledge; under US law, to be guilty you have to know you did something that you at least reasonably believe is an activity that you're not supposed to do. Yes, cops can send you email threatening to use your remailer for felonious purposes, but if you don't know they've actually done it, and you haven't agreed with them to provide your encryption services in support of their felonious action, you're not a willing participant. Especially if you've got the welcome banner on your remailer page saying "You may not use this email encryption service for thoughtcrime, violations of the verbal morality act, idea laundering, anti-abortion activism, or other felonious or Un-American activities." You're no more a willful participant than the guy who receives an unordered package of child pornography mailed by a postal inspector. Now, if they make this a felony, surely conspiracy to participate in such activities could eventually be made illegal, and if the DemoPublicrats get re-elected, it probably will be some day. But this law doesn't do that yet. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 pager 408-787-1281 # "At year's end, however, new government limits on Internet access threatened # to halt the growth of Internet use. [...] Government control of news media # generally continues to depend on self-censorship to regulate political and # social content, but the authorities also consistently penalize those who # exceed the permissable." - US government statement on China...

1 0

Re: News on RSA vs. Cylink Injunctions and Patents
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:00 PM 3/9/96 -0500, Perry wrote: >> I'm curious, because in the past, as I understand things, RSA has >> said that the DH patent covers El Gamal. If RSA no longer considers >> DH to be a valid patent, that would mean El Gamal is not patent >> encumbered. >It all matters very little to me, as the patents expire next year. Yeah, but that's still a year and a half till they're gone. Having them gone now (for some relatively small value of "now") would be especially pleasant, because we can start totally ignoring them (except for the RSA and Schnorr patents) rather than mostly ignoring them. Unfortunately, the somebody-at-Siemens-in-Paderborn patent on using Diffie-Hellman with hashed shared secrets for authentication is (minimally) good until something like 1994+17, even though it's so obvious to the skilled practitioner that I thought of it independently myself. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 pager 408-787-1281 # "At year's end, however, new government limits on Internet access threatened # to halt the growth of Internet use. [...] Government control of news media # generally continues to depend on self-censorship to regulate political and # social content, but the authorities also consistently penalize those who # exceed the permissable." - US government statement on China...

1 0

Explosives, Criminality, and Preemptive Action
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:06 AM 3/10/96, JonWienke(a)aol.com wrote: >Who says they were going to blow anything up? It is perfectly legit for >farms to have large quantities of fertilizer around--they use it all the >time. Same with diesel fuel--what are they supposed to run the tractors and >combines with? Dog piss? DUHHHH! As far as having the instructions for >mixing them to go boom, who the hell made that a crime? You could bust most >of the farmers in this country if you criminalize simultaneous posession of >fertilizer and diesel fuel. Did these people ever actually mix any of the >fert. and fuel together? Did they threaten to blow up anything? My personal belief, from the news reports I've read (which may be incorrect, of course), is that the ingredients were for use in a bomb, whether or not they'd ever have gone through with it or not. The ancillary items found (dozens of assault rifles, weapons manuals, patriot literature, crank, meth, etc.), and the stockpiling of ANFO precursors, suggests an Oklahoma City-type scenario. This is what I think was objective reality. Now, before certain readers go ballistic, start foaming about how TCMay and his Tentacles of Medusa are pawns of Bill and Hillary, not to mention spawn of Satan, etc., I'm not saying that what they did is criminal. Having the potential to build a bomb or other deadly gadget is not the same as actually building and using one. But should law enforcement have waited until the bomb was actually built? Or actually loaded onto a truck? Or actually placed in a target area? Or actually detonated? Mightn't it be argued that until the bomb actually explodes, no crime has occurred? (A fine line. A topic oft-debated in libertarian discussion talkathons: if you see your neighbor preparing what you think will ultimately endanger you or your neighbors, at what point are you justified in taking premptive action? Certain extremists argue that at no point prior to your own death, for example, has an "assault" occurred. Less extreme folks argue that the assault happens when your neighbor begins to turn his gun in your direction. And extremists at the other end believe that potentially dangerous objects must be taken away from people long before they could ever put them to use. Ergo, gun control, restrictions on bomb-making info/anfo, etc. I take a stance closer to the first example, though I feel no qualms about hitting first if I really think I'm about to be attacked.) The argument that because farmers can use these products that the use must have been an innocent use is a weak one. Anyone with any common sense can see what they were up to. Who's kidding whom? But, like I said, this may not be criminal. And courts routinely have to deal with "conspiracy" cases to decide just how real the conspiracy was. (I don't care for "conspiracy" charges...too much chance for abuse.) Certainly the folks in Oregon will not face much prosecution, as near as I can figure. The weapons charges may affect their parole (some of them are ex-cons). The drug amounts are small. And the ANFO precursors....not clear to me at all that having these is a violation of the laws about explosives, but maybe it is. >This whole situation is nothing more than jackbooted thugs getting a rush by >stomping on people. FTJBT Overly simplistic. Don't misunderstand me: I share your anger at Waco, Ruby Ridge, gun confiscation, tens of thousands of laws, high taxes, etc. But I doubt the Oregon bust was a bunch of Waco Warriors assaulting the compound with tanks and helicopters. --Tim May, probably just added to Jim Bell's list of people he plans to have killed Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: FCC Sets Comment Date for Internet Phone Call Rulemaking (fwd)
by Mutant Rob 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Henry Huang wrote: > ------- Start of forwarded message ------- > From: "Neal J. Friedman" <njf(a)commlaw.com>[..] > > The FCC has acted with astonishing speed in setting a date for comments > the ACTA petition to regulate telephone calls via the Internet. It is > uncommon for rule making petitions to sit for weeks, months, even years > without action. ACTA filed its petition on March 6th and two days [..] Odd that I have yet to see this in any business news. Has it made the WSJ, NYT, Bloomberg or TWP? Also odd that the FCC could try to regulate it. Not much they can do if someone outside the US uses IPhone or the like. - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMUDveCoZzwIn1bdtAQHRkQF/U9Ypd5hAkoY86fF8e4pW9HLtVVvrRTVz GqxrRoq12MRtfQZqtD5q0u7VY6gJgR3Y =T64o -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

CRIMINAL LAW SEMINAR
by AFDA2＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Friday, April 19, 1996, the Association Of Federal Defense Attorneys (AFDA) will present a one-day seminar, "The Key Fundamentals of Federal Sentencing." The seminar will be held at the Los Angeles Airport Marriott Hotel, from 9:00 am to 4:30 pm. Fee: $125 for AFDA members; $175 for non-members. Handout materials will include case law outlines and the sentencing guidelines. This seminar is specially designed for state court attorneys who handle occasional federal cases, for new federal defense attorneys, and for those who want a primer on the mechanics of the federal guidelines. For the experienced federal practitioner, AFDA will present its Third Annual Seminar, "Federal Sentencing Updates & Strategies," in the fall of 1996. For more information, click the Reply button and send a brief email requesting a fax-flyer. Remember to include your fax number. The Association's email address is: AFDA2(a)AOL.com

1 0