December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Appeal coming in mail
by bill payne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tuesday 8/11/98 8:14 AM George B. Breznay, Director Office of Hearings and Appeals Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 Dear Director Breznay: Purpose of this letter is appeal a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) denial. Attached is Herbert Richardsons July 6, 1996 denial letter of request 95112002.. Richardson writes Under Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R), subsection 1004.1, the Department of Energy will make available records which it is authorized to withhold under the Act whenever it determines that disclosure is in the public interest. In invoking exemptions 6 and 7(c), we have determined that it is not in the public interest to release the withheld material. In this request, we have determined that the public interest in the identity of individuals whose names appear in investigative files does not outweigh these individuals privacy interest. Those interest include being free from intrusion into the professional and private lives. Director Breznay, my FOIA was for all investigative reports authored by DOE into my allegations that NSA willfully and knowingly attempted to sabotage DOE/Sandia cryptographic projects. http://jya.com/da/whpda.htm THIS IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. I appeal. The public has a right to know about fights for control of power between US government agencies which endanger national security. http://www.aci.net/kalliste/nukearse.htm And attempts to cover-up. these fights. I ask that you compile a Vaughn Index of the 215 items listed by Ricardson. An agency is required to make a decision on an appeal within 20 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays). It is possible for an agency to extend the time limits by an additional 10 days. I ask that you respond in the time allotted to you by law. Sincerely, William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111

1 0

Cracked: WINDOWS.PWL
by John Lemons 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I seen the interesting article on this and was wondering if you had the rest of the glide.c code because is was cut off at the end. Thanks, John...

1 0

ubsubscribe me
by WSander473＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

i wish to be unsubscribed. wsander473

1 0

CTIA Daily News from WOW-COM - August 11, 1998
by CTIA Daily News 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

========================================== Welcome to today's edition of the CTIA Daily News from WOW-COM. Please click on the icon / attachment for the most important news in wireless communications today. If you cannot open the icon/attachment, please visit http://www.wow-com.com/professional/ for the wireless daily news. Don't miss the major conference on implementing Phase 2 of the E-911 requirement--August 26-27 in San Francisco. For more information, click http://www.wow-com.com/pdf/locntech.pdf ===========================================

1 0

novice needing help
by Olivier Langlois 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, I just started to read about cryptography and during my readings I found a small problem probably not very hard but I just don't know how to solve it. My number theory knowledge is very limited. a = b/c and d = b/(b mod c) I would like to demonstrate that gcd(a,d) = 1 and a*d>=b for any b and c values(assuming b mod c != 0) is true or false through logical induction. Is there someone that could give me a hint ? TIA Olivier Langlois - olanglois(a)sympatico.ca - http://www3.sympatico.ca/olanglois Montreal, Canada

2 1

Microsoft Office Support News Watch - August 10, 1998
by Support Online Staff 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Microsoft Office Support News Watch =================================== As a subscriber to the Microsoft Office Support News Watch, you receive e-mail twice each month that highlights some of the new articles recently published on Support Online, Microsoft's award-winning technical support web site. E-mail Security Alert ===================== Recently Microsoft was notified by AUSCERT (http://www.auscert.org.au) OUSPG (http://www.oulu.fi) and NTBugtraq (http://ntbugtraq.ntadvice.com) of a security issue affecting the way Microsoft e-mail clients handle file attachments with extremely long file names. On July 27th, Microsoft published a patch for Outlook 98 and Outlook Express 4.x that fixes the problems as reported. For more information about this problem and how to fix it, link to the following Microsoft security bulletin: http://www.microsoft.com/security/bulletins/ms98-008.htm Microsoft has published the following two Knowledge Base (KB) articles on this issue: - Microsoft Knowledge Base (KB) article Q168019, Update Available For Outlook Express Security Issue, http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q168/0/19.asp - Microsoft Knowledge Base (KB) article Q175807, OL98:Update Available For Outlook 98 Security Issue, http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q175/8/07.asp Year 2000 Compliance Information ================================ For the latest official word about year 2000 compliance by Microsoft products, visit the "Microsoft Year 2000 Resource Center" at: http://www.microsoft.com/y2k/ Microsoft Office Update Web Site ================================ For the latest in product information, enhancements, assistance and business resources, visit the Microsoft Office Update Site. This site is continually updated, so check back often for new information. http://www.microsoft.com/office/update.asp Get Support Online Articles by E-mail ===================================== You can also receive these articles (and others) in e-mail by sending a message to mshelp(a)microsoft.com. In the Subject line of your message, enter the Article-ID number (Qnnnnnn). For example to receive Q162721, your Subject line should resemble the following example: Subject: Q162721 You can have multiple articles sent to you in e-mail by typing multiple Article-ID numbers separated by a comma. For example: Subject: Q178049, Q174914, Q174062 To receive an index of articles, enter "Index" (without quotation marks) in the Subject line. For example: Subject: Index The MSHelp Index is updated monthly. For more information about MSHelp, see http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q183/1/21.asp. Sincerely, The Support Online staff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Microsoft-sponsored events: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For information on all Microsoft-sponsored events, please visit: http://events.microsoft.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ How to use this mailing list: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You received this e-mail newsletter as a result of your registration on the Microsoft.com Personal Information Center. You may unsubscribe from this e-mail newsletter, or subscribe to a variety of other informative e-mail newsletters, by returning to the Personal Information Center at http://register.microsoft.com/regwiz/personalinfo.asp and changing your subscription preferences. Alternatively, please send a reply to this e-mail with the word "unsubscribe" as the first line in the body of the message. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. The information contained in this document represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation on the issues discussed as of the date of publication. Because Microsoft must respond to change in market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information presented after the date of publication. INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED 'AS IS' WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND FREEDOM FROM INFRINGEMENT. The user assumes the entire risk as to the accuracy and the use of this document. This document may be copied and distributed subject to the following conditions: 1. All text must be copied without modification and all pages must be included 2. All copies must contain Microsoft's copyright notice and any other notices provided therein 3. This document may not be distributed for profit

1 0

Curis LeMay theory of responsibility
by bill payne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tuesday 8/11/98 6:56 PM John Young J Orlin Grabbe Morales courtroom outcome today was perhaps most important for the reason that judge Leroy Hansen dismissed all of the individually-named defendants in Morales' case. Hansen cited a Tenth circuit ruling where individually-named defendants were dismissed. The tenth circuit decision is monumental in that 1 one can only do discovery on individually-named defendants if some opinion is correct. Named parties. Morales and I squeaked by in our NSA lawsuit because US assistant attorney did not complain in time. 2 no one is INDIVIDUALLY to blame. There is only an agency. The LeMay theory is that EVERYONE is to blame. This is after general Curtis. http://www.psispy.com/ufo/people/l/lemay/ The LeMay theory is that if some government is doing something the US government does not like, then the US begins to kill the citizens of the errant government. Doesnt make any difference what citizens. All are treated equal. After the US kills enough citizens, then the errant government stops whatever offended the US. 2 is opposite the LeMay theory. Problem is that few believe this. Disbelivers revert to the LeMay theory. Everyone is to blame. Hence terrorism is justified. The Allahu Akbar crowd has figured-out this. Morales and I are going to ATTEMPT to bring the guilty in our NSA lawsuit to justice. Wish us luck. Later bill UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT William H. Payne ) Arthur R. Morales ) ) Appellants Plaintiffs, ) ) 98-2156 v ) 98-2157 ) Lieutenant General Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF ) Director, National Security Agency ) National Security Agency ) ) Appellees Defendants ) RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MEMORANDUM BRIEFS ADDRESSING JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES 1 COMES NOW appellant plaintiffs [Appellants - Plaintiffs] Payne [Payne] and Morales [Morales] pro se litigants to exercise their rights guaranteed under the Constitution and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm Any party may file a response in opposition to a motion other than one for procedural order [for which see subdivision (b)] within 7 days after service of the motion, ... http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#27 and FRAP 26c Additional Time after Service. When a party is required or permitted to act within a prescribed period after service of a paper upon that party, 3 calendar days are added to the prescribed period unless the paper is delivered on the date of service stated in the proof of service. http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#26c MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MEMORANDUM BRIEFS ADDRESSING JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES [MOTION] was served on August 3, 1998 by Jan E Mitchell [Mitchell], Assistant US Attorney by mail. Exhibit A. 2 Mitchell writes The Defendant-Appellee, National Security Agency [1], moves this Court for an Order extending the time to and including twenty-one (21) days following the date Plaintiffs-Appellants file their memorandum brief in which to file it memorandum briefs discussing jurisdictional issue in the above-referenced appeals. ... 3. Defendant-Appellee is not seeking an appeal and therefore, will NOT seek a certification for interlocutory appeal from the District Courts memorandum Opinion and Order entered April 30, 1998, nor will Defendant-Appellee seek an order explicitly adjudicating all remaining claims. 4. On July 22, 1998, Plaintiffs-Appellants were granted an extension until September 1, 1998 to respond to the Courts show cause orders of June 30, 1998. 5 . Defendant-Appellee seeks an additional twenty-one (21) days from the date in which Plaintiffs- Appellants memorandum must be served in which to serve the memorandum briefs. According to the Show Cause Order, if Appellants do not seek and obtain a certification for interlocutory appeal or a final dispositive adjudication concerning appeal N. 9821257, the appeal may be dismissed, in which case a jurisdictional brief would not be required as to that appeal. Should Plaintiffs-Appellants seek and obtain a certification for interlocutory appeal pertaining to No. 2157, in the interest of economy, Defendant-Appellant seeks to file the two memorandum briefs on the two very related jurisdictional issues at one time. 6. Undersigned counsel for Defendant-Appellee has contacted Plaintiff-Appellant William H. Payne who has concurred on his own behalf and own behalf for Plaintiff-Appellant Arthur R. Morales in granting of this motion. ... 3 Payne confirms 6 above in fax Monday 8/3/98 3:41 PM FAX Jan Elizabeth Mitchell Assistant U.S. Attorney U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney District of New Mexico Post Office Box 607 Albuquerque, NM 87103 505/346-7274 505/766-2868 FAX 505/346-7205 Dear Ms Mitchell: Purpose of the fax is to 1 review points covered in our 8/3/98 14:18 phone conversation 2 suggest settlement. You phoned me today. You told me that you planned to file a motion or response to the Tenth circuits request Morales and my response to the jurisdictional issue on the 21st of August. I told you that this was premature on your part since we had moved for a second time for an extension of time. I told you also that this matter was now before congress. You appeared to indicate to me that you were in the process of adding both Morales and Minihan as named parties in this appeal. You asked me if it would be agreeable to us if you filed a response to the Tenth circuit 21 days AFTER Morales and I filed our response to the Tenth circuit on the jurisdictional issue. I AGREED. I spoke to Morales on the phone shortly after our phone conversation. Arguing points of law before court clerks and judges who have outstanding criminal complaint affidavits for crimes COMMITTED IN WRITING against them would be unproductive on Morales and my part. Therefore, we will proceed to resolve the criminal conduct on the part of judges and court clerks before we proceed further in this matter. We will do this at the Congressional level. Senate Judiciary Committe chairman Orrin Hatch, unfortunately, failed to properly process a valid complaint on New Mexico district court chief judge John Conway in 1995. http://www.jya.com/whp071598.htm Hatchs failure to properly respond in 1995, in large part, caused our current legal conflict with DIR NSA Minihan. We foresee an unfortunate escalation of hostilities if this matter proceeds as it is. We do not wish this. We seek settlement of the UNFORTUNATE matter at the earliest time. We ask your and Congressional help to settle this UNFORTUNATE matter before it gets WORSE. If I have made any essential material errors in reporting my impression of the contents of our conversation, then I would appreciate you giving your impression of possible errors. You can do this in the letter you said you would write to us. Sincerely, bill payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 Distribution Senate Judiciary Committee e-mail Arthur R Morales e-mail 4 Michell responds to 3 in letter dated August 4, 1998. Exhibit B Mitchell writes I have received Mr. Paynes FAX dated August 3, 1998 at 4:22. I want to clarify a few points. ... As to the caption of the appeal, I have noted in the motion for extension of time which has been filed with the Tenth Circuit that there was an additional Defendant numbed in the District Court case. However, I am constrained at the time to use the caption which the Tenth Circuit is reflecting on its pleadings. I will forward your FAX suggesting settlement to Defendants. Sincerely, JOHN J. KELLY United States Attorney signature JAN ELIZABETH MITCHELL Assistant U. S. Attorney 5 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/overview.htm Rule 54(b) states (b) Judgment Upon Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties. Interpretation of meaning of 54(b) is RULE 54(b) JUDGMENTS UPON MULTIPLE CLAIMS OR INVOLVING MULTIPLE PARTIES CORE CONCEPT A judgment entered as to less than all claims in a lawsuit, or as to less than all parties in a lawsuit, is not immediately appealable. Instead, the appeal must generally await the entry of judgment as to all remaining claims and parties. However, the district court can make a judgment as to less than all claims or parties final, and thus immediately appeals, by expressly certifying that no just cause exists to delay the appeal and by directing the entry of judgment. APPLICATIONS Prerequisites to Rule 54(b) There are three prerequisites for obtaining an immediately appealable judgment from the district court entered as to less than all claims or parties. 1: Multiple Claims or Parties Fully Resolved: To be eligible for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b), a partial adjudication must either (a) finally resolve at least one claim or (b) finally resolve the rights and liabilities of at least one party. A claim or a partys interest MUST be adjudicated to finality, such that there is nothing more to do that claim or that party but await the conclusion of the remaining portion of the litigation. This limitation is a pivotal one. Rule 54(b) does not alter the normal rules of appellate finality for individuals claims, and no appeal may be taken from district court ruling or any particular claim until the court finally resolves that claim. Multiple claims exist where each claim is factually separate and independent, or where each claim could be enforced separately. 2: No just Cause for Delay: The district court must state, in clear and unmistakable language, that there is no just cause to delay the appeal of the adjudicated claim or the adjudicated right and liability of a party. Whether just cause exists is a determination made on a case-by-case basis. Certain criteria guide the courts consideration: o The relationship between adjudicated and unadjudicated claims; o The possibility that the need for appellate review might be mooted by future developments in district court; o The possibility that the district court might be obligated to consider the same issue on a later occasion; o The presence (or absence) or a claim or counterclaim that could result in a set-off against the judgment now sought to be made final and appealable; and o Other factors, including delay, economic and solvency concerns, shortening of trial time, frivolity or competing claims, and expense. 3: Entry of judgment: In clear and unmistakable language, the district court must also direct that judgment is entered as to that one claim or one party. Explanation by the District Court In its order entering a Rule 54(b) judgment, the district court must clearly explain why it has concluded that an immediate appellate review of that order is advisable. Burden of Proof The moving party bears the burden of establishing that a partial judgment should be entered under Rule 54(b). Discretion of District Judge Whether to enter a judgment under Rule 54(b) is reserved to the sound discretion of the district judge. Such arguments are contrary to the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals. For this reason, Rule 54(b) orders are not granted routinely or an accommodation to counsel. Instead, the district court must carefully balance the needs of the parties for an immediate appeal against the interests of efficient management of the litigation. Motions for Rule 54(b) Judgments A party may file a motion with the court to certify under Rule 54(b), or the court may do so on its own initiative. Effects of Rule 54(b) Judgments Once entered, the time for appeal on the judgment begins to run, and does post-judgment interest. Appealability of Denials for Rule 54(b) Requests Allowing immediate appellate review of partial final judgments is a practice that departs from the federal courts traditional opposition to piecemeal appeals. Rule 54(b), thus, represents an unusual exception to this settled policy. Predictably, the court reject immediate attempt to challenge denials of Rule 54(b) judgments as premature and unappealable until a final ruling his entered on the merits. Federal Civil Rules Handbook 1996, Baicker-McKee, Janssen, Corr, West Publishing Company 6 Appellants-Plaintiffs assert that there is NO REASON to seek a Rule 54 (b) certification for the REASON THAT New Mexico district judge Santiago Campos [Campos] already issued such certification. FACT 1 4 May 1998 Campos writes NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that sua sponte, Defendant is DEEMED by the Court to be the NSA, and not Lt. Gen. Kenneth A. Minihan. Future captions for this case should reflect this change. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Morales is GRANTED. http://jya.com/whp043098.htm 1: [A] claim or a partys interest MUST be adjudicated to finality ... has been satisfied. FACT 2 2: is satisfed. [N]o just Cause for Delay: Dismissing Minihan and Morales have nothing to do with the remaining claims of whether AppelleeS- DefendantS Minihan and NSA provide lawfully requested documents on 1 Iran messages given to Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war. http://www.aci.net/kalliste/speccoll.htm http://caq.com/cryptogate 2 Libyan message intercepted by the US 3 deficient NSA cryptographic algorithms FACT 3 3: In clear and unmistakable language, the district court must also direct that judgment is entered as to that one claim or one party. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that sua sponte, Defendant is DEEMED by the Court to be the NSA, and not Lt. Gen. Kenneth A. Minihan. Future captions for this case should reflect this change. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Morales is GRANTED. http://jya.com/whp043098.htm is QUITE CLEAR. FACT 4 Motions for Rule 54(b) Judgments A party may file a motion with the court to certify under Rule 54(b), or the court may do so on its own initiative. Campos issues Rule 54(b) certification ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE. However, I shall await decision on the appeals before the Tenth circuit prior to setting a date for presentment of the classified Declaration or before taking any further action in this case. FACT 5 Therefore, no Rule 54(b) certification needs to be sought by Appellants-Plaintiffs. 7 Campos did not explicitly state in Camposs June 29, 1998 letter http://jya.com/sec062998.htm or in Campos MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER http://jya.com/whp043098.htm that a Rule 54(b) decision was issued. Therefore, Appellants-Plaintiffs seek to clarify Campos intention Wednesday 8/11/98 Certified Return receipt requested Santiago E. Campos, Senior Judge P.O. Box 2244 U.S. Courthouse South Federal Place Santa Fe, NM 87504-2244 Re: William H. Payne v. National Security Agency Civ. No. 97-0266 SC/DJS Dear Judge Campos, We assume that your statement However, I shall await decision on the appeals before the Tenth circuit prior to setting a date for presentment of the classified Declaration or before taking any further action in this case. in your June 29, 1998 letter seen at http://jya.com/sec062998.htm is a sua sponte Rule 54(b) certification for immediate appeal. If we are incorrect in our assumption, then we ask that you write us and explain why we would need to wait to appeal. Clearly we have satisfied the three conditions required for immediate appeal which we are sure you are acquainted. If not, however, these conditions are included in Federal Civil Rules Handbook 1996, Baicker-McKee, Janssen, Corr, West Publishing Company Also, we would ask that you justify seeking permission for appeal from a judge who has issued a MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER when appellants have satisfied Rule 54(b) conditions if you choose to respond negative. If we do not hear from you Monday August 31, 1998, then we will treat our assumption as correct. Sincerely William H. Payne Arthur R. Morales 13015 Calle de Sandias NE 1024 Los Arboles NW Albuquerque, NM 87111 Albuquerque, NM 87107 8 Appellants-Plaintiffs receive Exhibit C UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM H. PAYNE; ARTHUR R. MORALES Nos. 98-2156 Plaintiff - Appellants, 98-2157 NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, Defendant - Appellee. ORDER Filed August 6, 1998 The appellants and appellee are granted additional time until September 21, 1998 to this court's show cause order of June 30, 1998. All other requests contained in the appellants; motion filed August 4, 1998 are referred to the panel of judges who will hear this case on the merits. Entered for the Court PATRICK FISHER, Clerk of Court by: signature Randy Simmons? Deputy Clerk A Hearing MUST be corrected to include defendant Minihan. B Clerk FISHER has not addressed his removal from the appeal for previous title 18 felony violations of law. C ORDER does not address selection of three judge panel so not to include judges accused of Title 18 felony violations of law or biased judges. WHEREFORE 9 CORRECT ORDER Filed August 6, 1998 to include NSA Director Minihan. for reason 1 Find out who is RESPONSIBLE 2 Hold them ACCOUNTABLE 3 Hold them individually and their agency FINANCIALLY LIABLE Possiblity exists that some may pay with their lives for http://www.aci.net/kalliste/speccoll.htm http://caq.com/cryptogate http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm if this matter is NOT PEACEFULLY SETTLED. 10 EXPLICITLY RESPOND to request for removal of clerks FISHER and Hoecker from this appeal. 11 EXPLAIN how an unbiased panel of judges can be found at the Tenth circuit. Respectfully submitted, William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 Arthur R. Morales 1024 Los Arboles NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 Pro se litigants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing response and motion was mailed to Lieutenant General Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF, Director, National Security Agency, National Security Agency, 9800 Savage Road, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000 and mailed to Jan E Mitchell, Assistant US Attorney, 9 Floor, Bank of America Building, 3rd and Tijeras, ABQ, NM 87102 an original and three copies as required by FRAP 27(d) http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#27d United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1823 Stout Street, Denver, Co 80257 by CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED mail August 11, 1998. 9

4 3

One Nation update: Small Business Policy and Four Corners
by Global Web Builders 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear One Nation supporter in NSW Small Business policy: Pauline Hanson's One Nation Small Business policy will be released on the Internet at 2pm Australian Eastern Standard Time today. (Media embargo until 2pm) We would encourage you to please visit the page with the policy document which has the main thrust of: Giving small business priority over large business where possible. This includes forcing big corporations and multinationals to pay their fair share of our tax burden etc.... The link will be from the main One Nation page at: http://www.gwb.com.au/onenation/index1.html the summary small business policy will be at: http://www.gwb.com.au/onenation/policy/business1.html after 2pm. Please print out and circulate this policy document as far and as wide as you can so that you can assist us in counter-acting the obvious media distortions that will follow. ------------------ Four Corners report last Monday: We apologise for the incorrect statement that we gave you in our last post last week when we said: "On Monday night (10th August) the ABC's Four Corners programme will be looking at One Nation and the media." It appears that the rules of engagement were changed once again by the media in a report headed "Inside One Nation". The writer was personally interviewed for 3 hours by reporter Tony Jones at his office to discuss the (to quote Jones) "The blatant misreporting by the media on One Nation." The writer was clearly told that the ABC report was to be along these lines - thus our statement last week. None of the interview with the writer was used in the report - you can draw your own conclusions. We can only assume that the ABC's Four Corners program have, in this case, joined Channel 9's 60 Minutes program in slanted reporting against the party. You might recall Mr Brendan Bogle the 25 year old ex-President of Petrie branch was one of many who made negative and incorrect statements about One Nation on the Four Corners report. Bogle this week told the media that "there would be a mass desertion of 200 One Nation members from Petrie branch to the Nationals". Last night 5 One Nation members attended "his" branch meeting. Not all joined the National Party - who were represented there by Senator Boswell. When questioned why the other 200 had not attended Bogle told the media that they had been "intimidated". This is blatantly untrue. They did not support him nor his inflammatory comments made on Four Corners on Monday. We would ask that you be aware of the bias in some reports and consider what the real agenda is behind some of the reporting seen on the screen and in the papers today. GWB Scott Balson

1 0

Re: Mail Order Condoms
by 44822272＠hotmail.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Convenient..... MAIL ORDER CONDOMS! DISCREETLY PACKAGED, CONVENIENT, FAST DELIVERY! PACIFIC COAST MAIL ORDER Products is now offering .......... TROJAN.... AMERICAS #1 BRAND of condoms available discreetly by MAIL ORDER! We FEATURE the most popular style..... **** TROJAN-ENZ with spermicidal lubricant! **** Having condoms EASILY AVAILABLE is essential, YET many people do not carry them for VARIOUS reasons. Many people are EMBARRASSED to purchase condoms, while others do not have easy access to QUALITY condoms. WOMEN IN PARTICULAR are embarrassed to purchase condoms, but many wish to carry them. TEENAGERS are especially at risk of sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies as they often do not have easy access to quality condoms. Regardless of the reason for not having condoms when needed you are not only putting yourself, but others in danger of DISEASE and UNWANTED PREGNANCY. Be Responsible! Be Safe! BE SENSIBLE! Our research indicates that the #1 SELLING CONDOM IS.... **** TROJAN-ENZ with spermicidal lubricant! **** PACIFIC COAST MAIL ORDER is featuring packages of 12 condoms with 2 additional condoms free (while supplies last, subject to change without notice) and will be shipped in DISCREET packaging the day your order is received! DISCREETLY PACKAGED! PROMPT DELIVERY! GREAT PRICE! PLEASE PRINT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING ORDER: ______ # OF PACKAGES FOR ONLY $ 8.99 EACH. ______ SHIPPING and HANDLING $ 2.00 EACH ______ Ca. Residents only (tax) $ .72 EACH Mail To: Name ___________________________ Address ____________________________ City,State,Zip _____________________________ Please Send Check or Money Order to: Pacific Coast Mail Order 862 Sir Francis Drake Blvd. #352 San Anselmo,Ca. 94960 Please allow 14 days or for delivery. Your order will arrive discreetly packaged! ** To be removed from our mailing list please reply to: plsrmv(a)hotmail.com Thank You, Jane P. 8 4 * *

1 0

ADV: Do You Take Credit Cards?
by Merchant Services 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is a responsible email being sent by K.M.A. 4401 Vineland Road, Orlando Fl 32811 Tel. (407)422-6784. Email remove(a)lightswirl.com. The above statement complies with section 301 requirements relating to transmissions of unsolicited commercial electronic mail. To remove your name from our mailing list immediately, please refer to the statement at the bottom of this message. Superior Bankcard United 900 Mass Ave Arlington, MA 02174 1-888-518-6842 ************************************************************************************** Do you take credit cards? If you said NO than your missing out on impulse sales! We can get you up and running in as little as 7 days even if you've had past credit problems! No Application Fees! Low $19 per month software or equipment leases! Only $550 to purchase equipment or software! 3 months same as cash program pay $183.33 for 3 months and then you own your processing equipment or software! Deal direct with the company NOT commisioned sales people Visit us on the web at HTTP://WWW.WEBTRANS2.com or call us at 1-888-518-6842! Thank you for your time, Chris --------------- We are currently consolidating our many mailing lists and need to update our databases. Our records indicate that you may have inquired in the past. If this is not the case, please reply with "REMOVE" in the subject field to never receive email offers from this vendor.

1 0