December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Kyl's internet gambling bill
by John Kelsey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [ To: cypherpunks ## Date: 10/30/97 ## Subject: Kyl's internet gambling bill ] >Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:31:21 -0800 >From: Steve Schear <azur(a)netcom.com> >Subject: Re: Kyl S-474 Anti-Gambling Bill passes committee [Stuff about Kyl's anti-internet gambling bill.] >Prediction: this bill will be about as effective as >outlawing spring. >About 20% of gamblers are 'problem' types who now regularly >game illegally and could careless about the penalties. Once >all on-line casinos offer real and 'play-money' wagering and >strong crypto it will be neigh impossible for the Feds to >know or prove which players are wagering real money and >therefore gambling. Once Onion and Crowds routers are >operational and widespread the Feds won't even be able to >find the casinos, and even if they do they may not be able >to shut them down (especially if they are built in a >distributed fasion). I always find these laws entertaining. In Missouri, we have state-run gambling in the lottery system, and state-licenced gambling on the riverboat casinos. Our Attorney General has been very vocal about shutting down internet casinos, to protect Missouri's citizens from being exploited. His concern for the welfare of problem gamblers in our state is touching. Odd that he isn't worried about those same citizens being taken advantage of by the in-state operations. Of course, the real issue here isn't about protecting citizens from themselves, or even about keeping citizens from being cheated by the electronic equivalent of weighted dice. It's about protecting the financial interests of those who now benefit from having local gambling monopolies. The state gets quite a bit of money from the lottery, and the companies that have invested in building riverboat casinos here are surely concerned about potential competition via the internet. The cities that have riverboat casinos typically get some part of the money made from them, which nicely brings those city governments into line. Presumably, something similar is happening with various states' Indian Reservations opening casinos. It's an interesting side-point that really anonymous communications and payment systems applied to gambling systems mean not only that *governments* can't shut down competing gambling schemes, but also that organized crime can't shut them down, whether through influencing corrupt governments to try to shut them down, or through direct action. Ob Crypto: There are cryptographic gambling protocols that can be verified (given some set of assumptions about underlying operations) to be fair. Thus, it's possible for a gambling operation to make their client software freely available in source, and allow people to see what it does and review it for fairness. If you find a reviewer or two you trust, you can ask them to digitially sign the executable they got when they compiled the code, and refuse to use any other code. This gives you a level of certainty that you're not being cheated by weighted dice that you simply can't get in physical casinos. (Sure, government agencies inspect those casinos, but the inspectors aren't incorruptible, and they can't be everywhere at once.) For a simple example, consider a situation where Alice and Bob need to agree on a shared seed. Assume they already have established a secure (encrypted and authenticated) session. They can easily generate a new shared seed by doing something like this: 1. Alice generates random R_0 and sends hash(R_0) to Bob. 2. Bob generates random R_1 and sends hash(R_1) to Alice. 3. Alice sends R_0 to Bob. 4. Bob sends R_1 to Alice. 5. Alice and Bob each generate their shared seed, R_0 XOR R_1. If the hash function doesn't leak information about its inputs, and if it is collision-resistant, then this protocol should work. If either party generates a random number, then the resulting seed is random, regardless of the other party's input. (You still have to work out administrative issues, like what happens when communications fail conveniently just after Alice sends Bob R_0, but these are easy enough to solve.) >--Steve --John Kelsey, Counterpane Systems, kelsey(a)counterpane.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNFje6UHx57Ag8goBAQEsZQP/TWqpL70gThhETuqDlrTJsCCy5PeTMNte t0tzg8fwPFK3cESSN+5ndRAjUXmdS8dmNZW1U8RcDFpH8YRd1uAfJ4CdmMrK8zgk OGcegYoSDgwtdLw43Zslx88nl7OgkfvyQqzZZmDkWwyXn0g1RMLcTVt8nyccm6O+ WPH3VLc+7Ho= =H+YB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --John Kelsey, Counterpane Systems, kelsey(a)counterpane.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36

1 0

Re: Clinton's Bigger Gun Ban
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 11/2/97 11:14 AM, Tim May (tcmay(a)got.net) passed this wisdom: [snip] >Some in the gun community are vilifying Olyarms for introducing this OA-93 >"assault pistol" (the name often applied to politically incorrect pistols >like this). As if Olyarms should have been cowed into not introducing a >product out of fear that Clinton would abuse his authority to ban Chinese >ammo. I would not villify them, but I would wonder if they considered that aspect when they decided to market the weapon. >> One thing though, 7.62x39 really could not be compared to the 5.56 >>NATO, its really more potent out to 2-300 meters; it is still a .30 >>cal vs 5.56 NATOs .223, but its far less potent than 7.62 NATO >>(7.62x54). The 7.62x39 was the standard caliber of ComBloc weapons for >>several decades, most specifically the AK-47, AKM-44 (sniper weapon), >>and SKS carbine. I think the Dragunov sniper system used a more potent >>cartridge. > >I've never owned anything in 7.62x39. I hear the SKS rifles are pretty good >for $150, or whatever, and a lot of people have bought them. To me they >look a little crude. And since I can afford things out of the AR-15 line.... Having faced down the SKS carbine in Nam on a couple of occasions, I can say its a rugged built and seemingly idiot proof weapon of reasonable accuracy out to 2-300 meters tops. Many versions come equipped with a three-fluted bayonette thats considerably longer than what we used and its *most* impressive when some guy comes out of the brush with one in your direction ... I got a chance to examine the blade from a few inches when I deflected his thrust and delivered a blow of my own ... I would just a soon have remained in blissful ignorance of the details ... <sigh> >(Debate rages in rec.guns and elsewhere about the relative merits of the >cartridges. I certainly see more variants of the AR-15 here in America, >more use by tactical and law enforcement teams, and more accessories. But >maybe I'm not looking in the right places.) The 7.62x39 really isn't much of a cartridge, its not potent enough to justify its size, 7.62x54 is more potent and its not small enough to capitalize on its wimpiness, 5.56 NATO delivers as much oomph in much less size. It is relatively simple to appreciate the size difference. When the standard issue service rifle was the M-14 (7.62x54 NATA) the standard load for a soldier was six(6) magazines of twenty plus the seventh in the rifle. When the M-16 became the standard service rifle, the same ammo load weight permitted twenty (20) magazines of twenty plus a twenty-first in the rifle. 140 rounds versus 420 rounds - biiigggg difference >One of the more interesting images I ever saw was a photo in one of the gun >mags of a friendly meeting in the U.S. between Eugene Stoner, principal >designer of the AR-15 (the M-16 in its military version) and Mikhail >Kalashnikov, whose name needs no further explanation. > >I suppose tree-hugging peaceniks would be aghast at a meeting between these >two merchants of death. I, being an antigovernment type, was nevertheless >impressed. I too was quite impressed with that meeting, but not surprising. I brought a prisoner in once, an NVA regular, a major, and spent several days in the field with him before we could get lifted out. He spoke excellant English and wonderful education and a wry wit. I found I related better to him than I did to most of the upper ranks in the 1st MarDiv in DaNang ... almost had half a mind to say 'screw the suits' and let him go. Of course therein lies the problem of 'the suits' ... so long as they can get us to think of the enemy as 'gooks' or 'ragheads' or 'krauts' they can con us into killing them ... but as soon as you realize they have wives and kids and jobs and bills and neighbors and aunts and uncles and nephews, in short, are just like use save for the cut of their uniform ... its gets a lot harder to see just why you should kill them (unless of course they are pointing a gun at you!) Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "The strongest evidence of intelligent life on other planets is that they haven't come here yet.' -- from somewhere on The Net

1 0

$600 Worth of FREE Software!
by equit＠hotmail.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, You don't want to trash this one! I "WILL" give you absolutely "Free" a New Software called "Freedom", that sells for $400. I WILL NOT ASK FOR ANY MONEY! Freedom software allows you to extract email addresses from the internet, classified ads, newsgroups, AOL subscribers, Etc. Freedom has many features, including easy extractions of the addresses you need to flag for removal. You can extract a "batch" of a few hundred, or a "catagory" of thousands at a time. BONUS!! Now I also provide you with a free Check software,"Checker", a $200.00 value that allows you to take checks by Fax, email, and phone! "FREE" Will your business "EXPLODE"? You bet it will! IT HAS TO !!!! You will become a part of a DOWNLINE THAT HAS THIS CAPABLITY! Along with "Freedom" and "Checker", I provide you with a "GREAT", "FREE BUSINESS", that you can promote on the internet and off. Additional BONUS - you will receive one of the cheapest long distance rates available today!! For quick and FREE details, just send an email with FREEDOM in the subject line to: <mailto:cmillerton@hotmail.com> and you will receive information about this exciting opportunity right away! I look forward to your response. You may email me at: cmillerton(a)hotmail.com for an immediate response for more info. Thanks,

1 0

Re: cute.
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 0xa11a8a18bf6dbe8362926e9458a3616d/0x4d162bbe1 a.k.a Amad3us wrote: >> I'm not sure a timestamp matters that much for "authenticating" your >> key. After all, you don't own "Amad3us", you own key 0x4D162BBE1. > >Yes. Except for minor nit: 0x4D162BBE1 is susceptible to a >0xdeadbeef attack, anyone can generate another key with that keyID. >Even the fingerprint is spoofable. But the combination is truly hard >to spoof, and this I do own: >0xa11a8a18bf6dbe8362926e9458a3616d/0x4d162bbe1 (fingerprint/keyID). Uhhh... that's what I meant to say. (Although I can't think of a circumstance where the fingerprint matters if the reputation is bound to the key only.) While we're on the subject, why are key IDs used anyway? People don't really use them for anything. Software might as well use the complete description of the key internally. For that matter, I'm not sure the the e-mail address and user name are good things to associate with the key. The e-mail address changes all the time. The user name should be assigned by you as part of the authentication procedure, not by the person offering the key. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFzktJaWtjSmRH/5AQHm8wf+Lkw/iHSwn/zEpttQws49R3pmDAjtSkrz Q8+6qI09JgfY4xnlljJkYMoeHpij9TEZ59SlBl5exSzCH6dQoStJXPACxm5UUQil J9YnDd3q4ehHMH9wQd8eXYpDNdRxqUGwqMZR8+eRlo1X2yGDvOY40+Ayd0/jnX8X AEhZ8io669eQ3+55n/25LkGT7Zc26zRLsiU+07pBWRIj2cwV7BiQF2gZqx9owf2E lrhKRJ7b7iDT7/Q+thrifzBHq1mUnugPlUXpYqv4SKPDzoK8zpGODIzLntv4M91b AllRO5ytCoSu1IFCTKJ4D3oT4OsftrjHy7MYNcsLNQDoKTbp7JewNA== =m1a1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

re: Speech as co-conspiring? I don't think so.
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >According to the dubious logic of that episode, no doubt they would >say they were innocent because they had not _met_ me on any >occasions. If, however, the prosecution could produce a witness >saying she had seen me in the company of the writer, director, >producer, etc., then their bacon would be cooked. By the logic of >their episode, of course. That's what their smart alecky lawyer will claim, anyway. I am confident that a jury made up of good red blooded Americans will see through this sham. The producers of the show certainly know that there are terrorist elements and psychopaths who would be watching. They know that these people will be turned on by the imagery of a BATF agent being brutally murdered. They could have told the same story using different imagery. Instead of using graphic violence, they could have expressed the idea of the BATF agent getting killed with a heartrending scene of his wife getting the phone call. That certainly would not have been inflammatory. But they didn't. The opted to go with a glorification of the act. Why? Incompetence won't wash - anybody getting to national TV has spent years in the business and is a total pro. They know what effect they are having. They glorified this act of violence to encourage others to do the same. Where is the FBI? Why isn't anybody doing anything? If the life of only one BATF agent is spared, it will be worthwhile! Think of his poor wife and kids. >>(*) Tim seems too wiley to be crazy. Instead, he seems to be playing >>The Most Dangerous Game: Fed baiting. >> > >It used to be called "free speech." > >Nowadays, admitting that one has guns is fed baiting. Admitting that >one will defend one's self is fed baiting. Admtting that one has read >certain books is fed baiting. And using unbreakable crypto is fed >baiting. > >Ah, what has the world come to? Remailers? ;-) Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFznlZaWtjSmRH/5AQHXxAf9H3MKpSwCCDl0HHjH8eKQ+k6p+knULe0y L4VHlx0ZHO45De3zIAkp/j4RMQtAxrC7tsWWbVe+FDeLUTJpOzZPauH43xAfcEsL nJZUkgIgMFv9CiUC5ybhjJdzyfTeuxeqo1juTVSQlOkUzqUb78EgawhsqebFeOlp /Qni+kVdjMeMiwoJR6wDL7bntVg5ojmiBH1CEdSth0hLm7fF7pn3kzJPlod0SXzJ NWanQa7TZwEpqkWFJ0n4ompYb/Hu6E407MhmushDQFT0W1/ayBP8pa3m65PmCSpf B/+Y49KK49b7GLUyHaoqJ8KB39+uVAbFZ4ZlX03/nXpUFUarGrV/tw== =NKOt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: PGP compatibility
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Lucky Green wrote: >On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, Robert A. Costner wrote: >> My copy of PGP 5.0 seems to be completely compatible with 2.6 versions. This >> message is signed, and my key is included within the message for those of you >> who have software that discards the non signed portion. (If you don't know >> how to extract my key, copy it and fix the broken dashed line, or use a >> keyserver) > >Of course your copy of PGP 5.0 is compatible with prior versions. I know >this, you know this, and the anonymous author claiming otherwise knows >this. He simply hopes that there are some people that don't know this. The >idea behind the original post and others like it over the last few days is >to spread FUD about PGP 5.0 after other attacks failed for lack of merrit. >If you repeat a lie often enough, eventually some people will believe you. >PSYOPS 101. Let's not fall for it. Actually, the cry of "Infowar!" itself could be used as a disruptive technique. It undermines dialogue. It breeds suspicion and paranoia. It encourages people to think of those who disagree with them as The Enemy. It can be used by a mole for cover. Gee, come to think of it, isn't Lucky the one who keeps trying to demoralize everyone by saying that Big Brother is inevitable? And, who was it that was waving around firearms at a Cypherpunks meeting? Isn't that a classic provocateur technique? (See the Earth First experience, for example.) Now, I think it's unlikely that Lucky is a mole. I'm just trying to show that once you start witch hunting, it turns out that the supply of witches tends to be highly responsive to demand. The Back Technique of fighting Infowar seems to be effective. Treat the claims of the suspected Infowarrior as if they are credible and carefully explain why there is an inaccuracy. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFzh3ZaWtjSmRH/5AQH8FQf7BzzvEog2DpaqwcEaHC5uaxI8D5xE5m1l Vr1oToONAHmnXelol2vTDyNITymQAY/LpVP5liFGAI3sWUQuLJmPOnfYsLD4xCj0 ZG0dXjWoujkNbMWd/kDtCOmngeCO7c+nW7u1xrI0vJXKtPM3+ipkQNvmpo9mTSaW 2MGdFAsAdbsRoUUQYXcDqJ+A19O0pVhaCU9rlhuqcX/RlHgTrWXXZk8MRlEiPdq5 gJad0cWRHIWPgtSUmTQoRbwxyV6ZaUHlPpEUw0V9zdH7N9Cz4WS1c+ylUaY/L+OA lqEqWksZVDKTbW8Bwc/1Up5Eek/YXzj1kT/YMnxB2bbnASfIA19GtA== =E0Vy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: effective GACK fighting (fwd)
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Blanc wrote: >Jim Choate wrote: >>But, why do we need a lawyer? We have the right to represent ourselves, why >>let somebody who has a intimate stake in the status quo represent us? > >Well, first of all I was being facetious, because of how people are always >saying we need Leadership (tm) and need to elect another President in order >to have a more Perfect Union. But I said we need a "good" lawyer - a >libertarian lawyer - because I expect that it would take someone who had >studied the legal system and made it their project to be well-educated and >articulate on these matters, to be able to successfully represent the >Consitutional values which we subscribe to. [snip] Fortunately some of these "good" lawyers already exist at the Institute for Justice. Basically, they are a libertarian version of the ACLU. They've accomplished some good things and deserve the support (read $$$) of freedom-minded individuals everywhere. (note: I'm not connected with them in any way; just letting the cypherpunk community know about an organization in sync with our views) "If you seek a courtroom champion for individual liberty, free market solutions, and limited government, look only as far as the Institute for Justice. When politicians pass sweepingly intrusive laws and bureaucrats build their empires of paperwork and power, only the Institute for Justice brings them to account in court." -- http://www.InstituteforJustice.org/ >>Has there ever been a law suite brought against the Supreme Court or >>Congress claiming their actions were unconstitutional? The amendment >>relating to taxation for a start, repeal individual taxation and return to >>the system originaly intended by the founding fathers. > >I don't know. But this is the sort of issue I was thinking of. Bill Benson has done some extensive research (his book is called The Law That Never Was) regarding the 16th Amendment (the so-called Income Tax Amendment) and how it was ratified. According to the information he has uncovered through exhaustive research in D.C. and all of the state capitals of the then 48 states, the 16th Amendment was never ratified by 3/4ths of the states. (see http://www.trustclarks.com/theman.html for more info) Friends of mine have spoken to Mr. Benson about this, and he says that the courts won't touch it with a ten foot pole. He even sells a package (or at least he was selling it back in 1995) of legal information about the non-ratification of the 16th that can be used as a defense in an income tax case. According to Mr. Benson (in 1995), each of the cases was dropped when the defense made it clear they were going to argue their defense based on this point. I understand that folks in the "patriot" movement have tried to take this to the Supreme Court without success. The Court refused to hear it. Assuming Mr. Benson's research is accurate and legitimate, the 16th didn't even come close to being ratified and is truly a Law That Never Was. Think about that next April 15th...the IRS's "lawful" authority is based upon a legal fiction. That's why it's called >voluntary< compliance. Nerthus - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 mQENAzRc0lEDFQEIALF2JX7RgDLC6nnSa7BmcczGumTRxhXx5mHoqPcGY95VGAVD 49iN/+59BBrHKxOU5JX5F9kWEsBG92KbOdB3XGCsub7AYmCl+iMrG+h+vJl9qCyc 134sq7WNfInA9TxiQ28/DldHj++gDeQJr9BvUU8Ez2Iu70uW5T7rlHFyBUWQBh3P 2dB/Q9A/dixhAzNTaeTuVH4TunoyDN6OrRrSTdZhsPs8dLVLLeqKC3qM28wLX5Mt qQCUb/pRb9TR9ygwaznAIdqSJ1qc/xqlQY6U0Vh6YVOaId+MQwzsq1ZRPlW0kYSS wgka2WXELH5ZpQLmCppM1pdkHhm54VbBl7TmNwkABRG0I05lcnRodXMgPGN5cGhl cnB1bmtzQGN5YmVycGFzcy5uZXQ+iQEVAwUQNFzSUeFWwZe05jcJAQFxVQf/WUSH ltCrUpoQwQ9oTGCJiRycTQqUzDuqaqR55xgyz8W5mARixBigd/sL63EoBlQmyHR3 NIgwIW3I8hcPfUlXi84hsZ+89/HVW3CoMk2g6692UEoKHUX6bMkeAi85hIfJVhFj EONhx3xFmdOZqkEbdFm81J/0JJIhtAe0Ut2DPu4B49yjO7NBTg97QWwO6ZymE09v BUv5esuvdxFbmn8qfPHdurs+MrvoKbhZIA8Xz03eTS1auT8pNvdEO4EDaac0njZ4 5wAbAeC79AqztS75GpT7cf0jZcYJPwtW8LPXj7SQCMimseZ7/2OxNPditI9e58CI EL/Dl0D9qn1NRPiVwA== =8W8j - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNFzU4eFWwZe05jcJAQEuEQf/cU+8VTsG7GRbP14eMtUIs2Hb9jKmCD8v +au46lGCy8NuuMl+3leRGT9tAARoe2+yVg6FJbwzCZvJMBNIR3YmEEm3WxEH9TZQ ghVk1nrCtZg0eLdKSHYIV8q061kcrNmgtn/J8zP4SH39NtcHBfTaqpqt6wwky0jd 7A096utO4p3ip870ss4V5P2LiW71riJh3L/pqCJnUMbQleLT5OK/+el7tnUZYX2g 8mNNA5qydHIleyoDB72Aj3u15Z1TLmCKXGt+Uj3fwzytjYDtwfs9d+7AI7Kk1kBQ RLw07pNou03Fr3M8SSeSiSkUGea4Hv0j8wJtSjIQoJ9on03zOsJAlw== =+v+X -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Vote CypherPunk!
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 20:24 -0500 10/31/97, TruthMonger wrote: >* In August, the Boston Globe profiled the Taiwan National >Assembly (which specializes in constitutional issues), where it is >fairly common for the minority New Party to filibuster by merely >grabbing the microphone and physically restraining majority-party >members so that they cannot call for votes. Fights break out, >sometimes bloody ones. Said a local political science professor, "It >may not be civilized, but it's efficient" because citizens respond by >re-electing the aggressive legislators. I'd probably have a lot more respect for Congresscritters if they cared enough about any issue to physically fight about it. Maybe we could issue them weapons, too; then term limits would become a moot point. (Who would win if Jesse Helms and Diane Feinstein had a fight to the death? The American citizens.) A suitable quote from Monty Python: We would like to apologize for the way politicians are represented in this programme. It was never our intention to imply that politicians are weak-kneed, political time-servers who are concerned more with their personal vendettas and private power struggles than the problems of government, nor to suggest at any point that they sacrifice their credibility by denying free debate on vital matters in the mistaken impression that party unity comes before the well-being of the people they supposedly represent, nor to imply at any stage that they are squabbling little toadies without an ounce of concern for the vital social problems of today. Nor indeed do we intend that viewers should consider them as crabby ulcerous self-seeking vermin with furry legs and an addiction to alcohol and certain explicit sexual practices which some people might find offensive. We are sorry if this impression has come across. In fact, they could run this at the top of every hour on C-SPAN. I'll call my cable company.

2 1

Forwarded mail...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 23:10:11 +0100 (MET) > To: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net > From: nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) > Fortunately some of these "good" lawyers already exist at the Institute for > Justice. Basically, they are a libertarian version of the ACLU. They've > accomplished some good things and deserve the support (read $$$) of > freedom-minded individuals everywhere. (note: I'm not connected with them > in any way; just letting the cypherpunk community know about an organization > in sync with our views) > > "If you seek a courtroom champion for individual liberty, free market > solutions, and limited government, look only as far as the Institute > for Justice. When politicians pass sweepingly intrusive laws and > bureaucrats build their empires of paperwork and power, only the > Institute for Justice brings them to account in court." > -- http://www.InstituteforJustice.org/ Thanks, I'll check them out as I am unaware of their position. > >>Has there ever been a law suite brought against the Supreme Court or > >>Congress claiming their actions were unconstitutional? The amendment > >>relating to taxation for a start, repeal individual taxation and return to > >>the system originaly intended by the founding fathers. > > > >I don't know. But this is the sort of issue I was thinking of. > > Bill Benson has done some extensive research (his book is called The Law > That Never Was) regarding the 16th Amendment (the so-called Income Tax > Amendment) and how it was ratified. According to the information he has > uncovered through exhaustive research in D.C. and all of the state capitals > of the then 48 states, the 16th Amendment was never ratified by 3/4ths of > the states. (see http://www.trustclarks.com/theman.html for more info) > > Friends of mine have spoken to Mr. Benson about this, and he says that the > courts won't touch it with a ten foot pole. He even sells a package (or at > least he was selling it back in 1995) of legal information about the > non-ratification of the 16th that can be used as a defense in an income tax > case. According to Mr. Benson (in 1995), each of the cases was dropped when > the defense made it clear they were going to argue their defense based on > this point. > > I understand that folks in the "patriot" movement have tried to take this to > the Supreme Court without success. The Court refused to hear it. > > Assuming Mr. Benson's research is accurate and legitimate, the 16th didn't > even come close to being ratified and is truly a Law That Never Was. Think > about that next April 15th...the IRS's "lawful" authority is based upon a > legal fiction. That's why it's called >voluntary< compliance. Actualy, his research is one of the reasons that I am so interested in an actual lawsuit. What if somebody were to go for several years with no contact at all with the IRS, and no intention of making contact. Then when approached that person makes enough noise to guarantee that they will be going to court. What would it then take to bush-whack the beggars? What is the absolute last point that your defence must be revealed prior to your presenting your case to the jury? The reason I use the first person is because to me it seems critical that no lawyer is actualy used in the defence. As I understand it, and I ain't no lawyer, there are some actions that a defendent may do if representing themselves that lawyers are prohibited from doing. Among them is stating the obvious fact, if the jurors don't believe the law is just they may refuse to find for that reason. If the Constitution and the actual record of votes in concert with the general feeling of excess regarding this matter doesn't prove the case, what will? ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: democracy?! (fwd)
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [Long discussion about crypto-anarchy vs. democracy removed] I suggest reframing the argument. Right now, the discussion seems to be: "If we were Gods, how would we institute a just political system on these people." Unfortunately, only a few Gods are reading the cypherpunks list and they refuse to do our bidding. The real question is: what should we do? Our (oversimplified) choices: 1. Democracy: Participate in the political process by joining various organizations, lobbying, begging for money, voting, etc. etc. 2. Crypto-Anarchy: Write code, buy guns, make money, make more money, etc. etc. The second choice is clearly better in terms of protecting your own hide. What if we want to protect the hides of other people? I believe choice 2 is still the better one. In any event, this is the more interesting discussion. The problem with choice 1 is that even if you can convince yourself that a group of people and an institution are sound and reliable today, you do not know what it will be doing later on. Choice 2, on the other hand, is a low risk investment and brings you into contact with a better group of people. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFzVSpaWtjSmRH/5AQG9LQf/WCepJirikSAU4DIVlRTqYQkfkahLDtxi H8E3a0HSoOYSJAJefx4h2Zl0yy2lYT6mdNjNYsjIR3lDbkDJh97DfgueLHAhmivE Ht4C9XzyzKB2CRGiLD5hlbGRzBYACUWU2sm5xNIxYJ44AuwyhHgpVp8vhQts7XRM xQzLtF4fDD+8Hc5AKq4vE4lTpJzwHUO7T2yANZlFMpx0clJDj7/pr+gSUTaWQcK4 pok4wAj+Hd9wrTtOLG40SqEQmmISi8owutvGStQgb3PSjDFsmpAQimxr4agMcylZ 7qxkNRc/sUzfdN5uc89n1cQ+E2fenocs5W6GJ7N8GRnfYP6127uveQ== =OuX5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0