- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Declan misses the mark on ecash
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 14 Jun '01

14 Jun '01

Declan McCullagh writes: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 07:00:21PM -0000, lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote: > > It is a botched attempt to describe the "cut and choose" mechanism. > > Right, it was an attempt to describe "cut and choose" in three > sentences or so. It's a news article, not a technical paper. Deal. It's not so bad that you botched cut and choose, it's that you misled readers into thinking that it was a central part of Chaum's ecash protocol. See the later question by Eric Cordian, just one of many readers who were undoubtedly scratching their heads trying to make sense of what you wrote. But hey, if you don't care about accuracy, I guess we can't hold you accountable. Your attitude is that it's just a news article. We can "deal" with that, indeed. The only thing that suffers is your credibility. > > The article also contains a recap of the Chaum/Brands patent wars. > > It would have been more interesting if there were some reference > > to new approaches to ecash that avoid the patents, such as the > > Lucre software by Ben Laurie, based on David Wagner's blinding > > (http://anoncvs.aldigital.co.uk/lucre/ > > The point of that section of the article was to talk about available > patents. Wagner's scheme appears to reply on Chaum's (original) > patents, so it wasn't relevant. Again, you misled the public by implying that all potential approaches to ecash were patented. In fact, Wagner's blinding does not rely on Chaum's original blinding patent and in fact is designed to avoid ALL patents. It appears to be an unpatented method for doing ecash. (Caveat, of course anyone trying to judge whether a particular technology is truly unpatented should consult a lawyer.) This kind of mistake, implying that all feasible approaches to ecash are patented, plays right into the hands of those who want to keep these technologies off the market. Ironically, this article will therefore serve to delay the progress which the author claims to desire.

2 1

Xerox Sux
by John Young 14 Jun '01

14 Jun '01

A Wall Street Journal article today on the SDMI/DCMA lawsuit by Ed Felten, et al, includes this nasty: "The decision to file the lawsuit hasn't been without consequences. Dr. Drew Dean is scheduled to resign from the Xerox research center tomorrow and says, without elaborating, that the resignation is 'related' to the DMCA lawsuit. A Xerox spokesman says that the legal challenge is 'not something the corporation wished to be involved in' but declined to comment further." Drew, like Dan Wallach, was a grad student of Felten's and the Xerox job was his first, I believe. Will Princeton boot Felten, will Rice boot Wallach? Depends on the courage of the trustees to resist their buddies' pressure, as half-dead Xerox could not. All hail the principled scientists, buck up trustees.

4 4

Re: TIME.com: Nation -- Supreme Court: Relax. The Heat is Off
by Faustine 14 Jun '01

14 Jun '01

> In any event, if a method is used to acquire signal *within* > a home, would that acquisition be forbidden by the thermal > decision? That is, if a signal is sent into a home to acquire > an interior signal, is that a violation? >This may seem to be similar to a bug planted just outside the >face of an exterior wall of a home, or reading the vibrations of >window glass, but I'm trying to imagine an alternative technology >to these, perhaps one that remains classified. >BTW, there has been speculation that NONSTOP and/or HIJACK >are codewords for acoustic vulnerabilities of the sort I'm >fumbling with. Interesting: especially in light of the fact that the Supreme Court has held that monitoring (with a pen register) the telephone numbers that an individual calls from his home is *not* a search, in that it constitutes information already being monitored by the telephone company. I suppose this same logic would hold true for what's already being monitored by the electric company, or, say, what your ISP is already monitoring. So perhaps the "solution" to getting around warrants would lie less in superadvanced MASINT than in giving the private sector incentives for doing more monitoring themselves--while quietly developing your own set of tools to take advantage of it. A sobering thought. ~Faustine.

1 0

message for william haas
by bill payne 14 Jun '01

14 Jun '01

Please forward to william haas of new mexico state risk management. Thusday 6/14/01 12:12 PM Christina E. Anaya 500 Marquette Ave. N.W., Suite 600 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 Ms Anaya: We respond to your June 11, 2001 letter. You write RE: Morales and Payne v. Theodore C. Baca. et al., Civil No. 01-634 JP/DJS Harassment is not a federal question. Your law firm has issued a fraudulent document to federal court stating that harassment is a federal question. New Mexico state court realizes this and issued Clerk's certificate on June 12, 2001. Your law firm harasses us. You write Pursuant to D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.4(a), the purpose of this letter is to determine whether you will concur with or oppose the motions I intend to file on Monday, June 18, 2001. The first motion will seek the dismissal of all your claims against Judge Baca on the basis of absolute judicial immunity. The second motion will seek a stay of discovery pending the Courts ruling on Judge Bacas motion to dismiss. Please let me know your position, in writing, on or before Friday, June 15, 2001. Our position is that your firm harasses us. Harassment is not a federal question. We ask that you forward a copy of this letter to William Haas RMD Claim No.: 0101299-000 Date of Loss: 10-20-00 in hope that we can reach a monteary settlement of your acts of harassment with your law firm's insurance carrier before we are forced to file a fourth lawsuit for harassment in New Mexico state court. Sincerely, Arthur R. Morales 1024 Los Arboles NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 Karen Molzen http://www.nmcourt.fed.us/dcdocs/judges/molzen.html Thank you SO MUCH for the legal advice if going to state court you gave me by phone in pullman, washington. It looks like it is working for Morales and me. It doesn't look good for Svet and Vazquez. To bad about Vazquez. http://www.nmcourt.fed.us/dcdocs/judges/vazquez.html She should have known better than to sign what the feds gave her. Morales points out that Vazquez is not exactly flipping burgers for a living. Best http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/ http://members.tripod.com/bill_3_2/ http://www.nmol.com/users/billp/ and, of course, keep up-wind http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/buehlerpayne.html Let's hope for settlement soon. THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO Arthur R Morales William H Payne Plaintiffs v civ 01 0634 wfd Theodore C. Baca Norman C. Bay Phyllis A. Dow Raymond Hamilton Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA Martha Vazquez MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR FILING ORDER WAIVING PACKET SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT TO FACILITATE ELECTRONIC FILING 1 Defendant lawyer Robert St. John writes Counsel for Defendant Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A., has expressed an intention to participate in electronic filing of pleadings and documents in this case. and signs SUBMITTED BY: RODEY, DIKASON, SLOAN, AKIN & ROBB,P.A. By Robert M. St. John Larry Montano Attorneys for Defendant Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A. P.O. Box 1888 Albuquerque, NM 87103 Telephone: (505) 768-7337 Facsimile: (505) 768-7395 Exhibit A. St. John is a defendant in this case. St. John has not filed ENTRY OF APPEARANCE in this lawsuit. St. John's filing ORDER is more than frivolous. It is a malicious intentional attempt to set the stage for possible digital document alteration. 2 Lawyer St John writes 3. In addition to serving on all parties, the parties shall file directly with the Court, any motions, briefs in support, responsive briefs, reply briefs and exhibits relating to them whether filed electronically on the ACE serve or in paper form. with "shall file directly with the Court" high-lighted in bold text. Paragraph 3 appears to be frivolous in that St. John appears to want something from plaintiffs by bold high-lighting which St. John does not explicitly state. Plaintiff's have always filed directly with the court. Paragraph 3 is frivolous. 3 Lawyer St John writes 5. Upon completion of the briefing process, the movant shall file with the Court and serve on all parties a Notice of Completion specifically identifying the pertinent motion ready for decision and any briefs or other documents which have been filed relating to that motion. St. John apparently writes this because of previous motion of plaintiff Payne for filing MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR FILING "NOTICE OF BRIEFING COMPLETION." St. John attempts to overrule Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. St. John's paragraph 5 is frivolous. 4 Lawyer St John has the gall to have defendant magistrate Don F Svet sign IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June ____,2001. UNITED STATES JUDGE Svet does not date filing. 5 St. John and the Rodey law firm by submitting ORDER WAIVING PACKET SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT TO FACILITATE ELECTRONIC FILING have established pattern and practice of malicious intent to subvert the federal judicial process by the frivolous ORDER. Moreover, harassment is NOT a federal question as recognized by New Mexico state court. Exhibit B. 6 Rule 11. Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to Court; Sanctions Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states (b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,-- (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; (3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief. 7 Rule 11 goes on to state (c) Sanctions. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation. (1) How Initiated. (A) By Motion. A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). It shall be served as provided in Rule 5 , but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other period as the court may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees. (B) On Court's Initiative. On its own initiative, the court may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b) with respect thereto. (2) Nature of Sanction; Limitations. A sanction imposed for violation of this rule shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (A) and (B), the sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation. (A) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of subdivision (b)(2). (B) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded on the court's initiative unless the court issues its order to show cause before a voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party which is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned. (3) Order. When imposing sanctions, the court shall describe the conduct determined to constitute a violation of this rule and explain the basis for the sanction imposed. 8 The best way to insure that this malicious and intentional judicial conduct does not occur again is for this court to levy a substantial monetary penalty again the law firm of Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA for violation of Rule 11 by the filing. And, of course, for continue harassment of plaintiffs by this state issue continue to be heard by THIS COURT. 9 WHEREFORE sanction Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA $3,000,000 for having filed ORDER WAIVING PACKET SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT TO FACILITATE ELECTRONIC FILING. Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Morales 1024 Los Arboles NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed to Stephen G French 500 Marquette Ave NW, Suite 600 Albuquerque, NM 87102 505 843 7075 John W Zavitz Assistant US Attorney PO Box 607 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 this June 14, 2001 _____ THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO Arthur R Morales William H Payne Plaintiffs v civ 01 0634 wfd Theodore C. Baca Norman C. Bay Phyllis A. Dow Raymond Hamilton Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA Martha Vazquez MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER WAIVING PACKET SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT TO FACILITATE ELECTRONIC FILING 1 ORDER WAIVING PACKET SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT TO FACILITATE ELECTRONIC FILING was written by defendant Robert St. John employed by defendant Rodey, Dickason, Sloan , Akin & Robb PA. Exhibit A, page contains lawyer St. John's signature. St. John is a defendant in this lawsuit. St. John has not filed ENTRY OF APPEARANCE in this lawsuit. St. John's filing ORDER is more than frivolous. It is a malicious intentional attempt to set the stage for possible digital document alteration. 2 ORDER was signed by federal magistrate judge Don F Svet. Svet is defendant in New Mexico state lawsuit cv - 2000 10289 and federal harassing lawsuit 00-1574 mv/wwd. New Mexico state lawsuit is still active jury trial matter. Svet's signature is judicial misconduct because he is involved as defendant in plaintiffs' federal and state lawsuits. 3 ORDER is docket entry 10 filed 06/08/01. Exhibit B. Case is reassigned from judge Bruce Black to chief judge James A Parker on June 7, 2001, docket entry 4 filed 06/07/01. Exhibit B. Svet was presumably removed along with Black on June 7, the day before he signed ORDER on June 8. 4 Magistrate judge Don F. Svet has established, along with some in federal court's clerk office, a pattern and practice of court document fraud as seen in attach, Exhibit C, MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF SUPPORT TO CORRECT DOCKET: (3) FRAUD (WHETHER HERETOFORE DENOMINATED INTRINSIC OR EXTRINSIC), MISREPRESENTATION, OR OTHER MISCONDUCT OF AN ADVERSE PARTY; with electronic filings. The gross and incompetent publication of two digital file stamp documents with the same digital file stamp but one dated December 06, 200 10:19 and the other dated December 04, 2000 10:39 show that digital file stamping can and has been defeated. Electronic filing in courts cannot work for the reason that digital documents are too easy to fake, as seen in Exhibit C. 5 The cases involving Morales and Payne are largely a result of the US government misconduct involving hardware and software "spiking" of computers. Some references on Internet are http://orlingrabbe.com/speccoll.htm http://jya.com/nsasuit.txt http://www.caq.com/CAQ/caq63/caq63madsen.html http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/8327/buehlerpayne.html The US government has the financial resources to fund such modification of computer hardware and software. And has established an unfortunate track record of having spiked computers and gotten caught. 6 WHEREFORE ORDER WAIVING PACKET SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT TO FACILITATE ELECTRONIC FILING must be stricken from the docket as an improperly filed document by two defendants. In addition, electronic filing cannot be made to work because it is too easy for an organization with financial resources to fake. The US federal government has both the financial resources and demonstrated history of 'spiking' computer hardware and software. 7 Harassment is not a federal question. New Mexico state court employees are no longer fooled by fraudulent removal of the Morales and Payne cases to federal court. New Mexico second judicial chief judge W John Brennan along with clerk Bennina Armijo-Sisneros have forwarded harassment complaint to chief justice Patricio M. Serna to appoint a judge to preside over a state jury trial plaintiffs Morals and Payne have paid for. And is guaranteed under the constitution of the State of New Mexico. Exhibit D. The act of Morales and Payne having to file this document is therefore another act of harassment using the US federal court system. Discontinue harassment. Remand to state court this and other two state lawsuits for harassment and replevin and harassment and defamation. Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Morales 1024 Los Arboles NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was mailed to Stephen G French 500 Marquette Ave NW, Suite 600 Albuquerque, NM 87102 505 843 7075 John W Zavitz Assistant US Attorney PO Box 607 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 this June 14, 2001 _____ We filed these this afternoon.

1 0

Why we still don't use digital cash
by Declan McCullagh 14 Jun '01

14 Jun '01

----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> -----

2 1

Quickoffice for Palm: Update & Offer
by Ross Weems (QO) 14 Jun '01

14 Jun '01

Dear cypherpunks, In this email: * Special Quickoffice Sale - save $10.00 with this email * New features of Quickoffice 5.1 for Palm handhelds * Exclusive "Print from your Palm" bundle offer <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> SPECIAL QUICKOFFICE SALE ------------------------ We're celebrating our latest award: Handheld Computing's Product of the Year - BEST PALM SPREADSHEET - (3 years in a row) Save $10.00 today on your purchase of Quickoffice 5.1 at the low price of $29.95 (offer expires June 30): BUY AND DOWNLOAD NOW -> https://sprite.cesinc.com/secure/buyonline2_qopromo2.asp Refresh you memory on why Quickoffice is the best Palm productivity suite for your Palm: http://www.cesinc.com/quickoffice/index.html <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> NEW FEATURES OF QUICKOFFICE 5.1 -------------------------------- * Color device support! * Quickchart graphs now in Full Color * Quicksheet gains even MORE functions * Quickword usability enhancements * PLUS more user-requested features... * AND even MORE enhancements are coming (free upgrades for 1 year) Our renown spreadsheet, Quicksheet, was recently named BEST SPREADSHEET PRODUCT OF THE YEAR for the THIRD consecutive year by Handheld Computing Magazine. Still sitting on the fence? Don't forget our YEAR of upgrades! Imagine getting free upgrades to all we've got in store for you over the NEXT YEAR... well, we can't say too much yet... To receive Quickoffice 5.1 for $29.95, order before JUNE 30 Click here to purchase at this special price right now: https://sprite.cesinc.com/secure/buyonline2_qopromo2.asp <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> EXCLUSIVE "PRINT FROM YOUR PALM" --------------------------------- Did you know you can PRINT your Quickoffice spreadsheets and documents directly from your Palm? Special Exclusive Offer on PrintBoy Office! When you order Printboy Office ($24.99) you'll get Printboy for Palm Apps FREE (a $15 value) Wirelessly "Beam" all of your Palm and Quickoffice content through IR direct to capable printers, or to any printer when using the optional Printboy InfraReady Adapter! PrintBoy Office: ($24.99) * Print Quicksheet spreadsheets; including multi-sheets & full formatting * Print Quickword documents INCLUDES PrintBoy Standard for FREE (a $15 value) which prints: * Calendar * Contacts * To-dos * Memos * E-mail * Clipboard * Scribble notes Order online by clicking this special link: http://www.bachmannsoftware.com/qoss NOTE: to activate the promo URL you might need to copy and paste the above link into your web browser ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>< To receive Quickoffice 5.1 for $29.95, order before JUNE 30 click here: https://sprite.cesinc.com/secure/buyonline2_qopromo2.asp Sincerely, Ross Weems Sales Manager Cutting Edge Software, Inc. 800-991-7360 1-214-956-9806 x1 http://www.cesinc.com mailto:sales@cesinc.com

1 0

RE: Fixing ORBS, and spam-proofing open relays.
by Trei, Peter 14 Jun '01

14 Jun '01

Eric Murray [mailto:ericm@lne.com] wrote: >On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 10:28:55AM -0400, Trei, Peter wrote: >> Instead of bitching about ORBS (which certainly >> behaves sub-optimally), I'd like to suggest that we >> discuss how a 'better' spam blocklist could be >> operated. >> [..] >> I'd like to suggest that if ORBS gave a little more >> information about *why* a given site was listed, >> and sites where thus able to implement their own >> policies over what parts of the list to use, >> then that would be a far more equitable situation. > >ORBS couldn't do this with any granularity >because of the way it was implemented- you did >a DNS lookup on the IP address to see if it was in the >ORBS database. There was no meta-info available. That may be so, but I would have thought that ORBS could have usurped one of the many types of queries which DNS permits to package it's reputation data. [...] >> ------------------- >> >> BTW, I expect that it should be possible to spam-proof an >> open relay, by tinkering very slightly with the protocol >> implementation. >> >> For example: if a server required a 10 second pause between >> successive RCPT commands, then a message to a >> single recipient would pass without problems, but a spammer >> trying to send to many people would be blocked. > >The benefit to the spammer of sending spam through a relay is >that the spammer can multiply his bandwidth-- the spam will >include many To: addresses in the envelope, so the relay has >to do the work of sending out all the mail, not the spammer's >machine. There may be hundreds of To: adresses in the envelope >for each mail that the spammer sends to the relay. >So this solution wouldn't work- it'll slow the spammer >down only a little. You could restrict the number of > To: addresses in the envelope, but that might also keep >you from sending mail to an "all" alias at a company. I think you misunderstand SMTP (If not, please correct me. :-) If you look at RFC 821, section 3.1, you'll find that the RCPT TO: command takes only a single address; multiple addressees are handled by sending multiple RCPT TO: lines, and waiting for a 250 OK or a 550 Failure response after each one. My suggestion is that, on a given connection, an open relay server wait 10 seconds after before issuing a 250 OK response. This is too short to time out a client, but slows the process down greatly for messages with multiple recipients. Yes, you couldn't spam your entire company's internal mail from an open server in this manner, but you usually would do this by sending to a single address which runs a mail exploder within the company. Nor does it protect against spammers sending messages to hundreds via mailing lists such as cypherpunks. However, it would permit open relays to exist without them adding significantly to the spam problem, which is the problem I am trying to solve. In my initial letter, I suggested delaying response only after the second RCPT message, but on second thought, I think delaying after the first one is ok. For single messages, you would not be bothered by a 10 second delay. and it prevents the spammer from opening hundreds to connections at once to get around the restriction. >> There are *many* other ways to tinker with the protocol >> implementations which would let legitimate users send mail >> without difficulty, using normal agents, but which would >> make the spammers' life far more difficult. > >I'd like to hear some of them. I've been having a hard time >coming up with ways to differentiate spam based on the header >info. I've had more luck identifying spam based on the content. I'll admit that was an off-the-cuff remark, and I'd have to think hard to find other ways. OTOH, I'm sure there are many. I'm not trying to identify spam per se; I'm trying to make the relay unattractive to spammers, while minimally impacting everyone else. I'm working at the SMTP protocol level, not envelope, headers, or content. I'm impacting behaviour, not content or header info. >Eric Peter Trei

1 0

你請你與我聯絡
by xyz6767 14 Jun '01

14 Jun '01

陳博士我是施孝杰要請你幫我上課可是聯絡不上你請你與我聯絡 TEL:0919430535 TEL:0955209035 TEL:28310583 xyz6677(a)sinamail.com ================================================================== 新浪網．免費 50MB 電子信箱 http://www.sinamail.com

1 0

Crime and Punishment in New York State
by George＠Orwellian.Org 14 Jun '01

14 Jun '01

Republican in favor of more lawsuits. http://www.ny1.com/ny/TopStories/SubTopic/index.html?topicintid=1&subtopici… # # State To Expand Son of Sam Law # # JUNE 14TH, 2001 # # State lawmakers and Governor George Pataki say they have made # a deal to expand New York's so-called Son of Sam law that allows # crime victims to sue for compensation from their attackers. # # Under the current version, victims can only sue criminals for # profits made from a crime, such as proceeds from a book or a # movie deal. # # Under the proposed change, victims would be able to sue for any # money the criminal may have, including income, inheritance, # investments and even lottery winnings. Victims will also get # more time to file a lawsuit. # # The measure is expected to be approved next week. # # The original law was enacted in 1977 to prevent serial killer # David Berkowitz, a.k.a. Son of Sam, from profiting by his # notoriety. ---- Look what snuck into this bill: # The bill would expand the databank of DNA samples the state takes # from people convicted of violent crimes to include people # convicted of all crimes, including misdemeanors. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/13/nyregion/13PERJ.html # # June 13, 2001 # # Governor to Seek Harsher Penalties for Perjurers in Criminal # Cases # # By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA # # LBANY, June 12 - Responding to notorious cases of innocent people # being convicted of crimes on the basis of false testimony, Gov. # George E. Pataki plans to propose tougher penalties for perjury # in criminal cases, aides to the governor said today. # # Mr. Pataki will call for the creation of a crime of aggravated # perjury, applicable only to testimony in criminal cases, and # punishable by up to 15 years in prison, the aides said. Current # law makes no distinction between perjury in criminal and civil # cases, and it carries a maximum penalty of seven years. # # Under the governor's proposal, there would be no statute of # limitations for aggravated perjury, so that people could be # prosecuted no matter how many years later their lies came to # light. For perjury, the statute of limitations is five years. # # Officials in the governor's office said the proposal, which he # will make public on Wednesday, was prompted by several highly # publicized cases in the last few years of people claiming to # have witnessed crimes sending innocent defendants to prison. # # One man, Dana Garner, has admitted to lying on the witness stand # in three Brooklyn cases, sending two men to prison for murder # and one for kidnapping; in one case he claimed to have seen a # killing take place in Brooklyn at a time when he was in North # Carolina. Two of the three have been freed. # # "The impetus behind the governor's proposal is the recognition # that perjury in criminal trials is an extraordinarily serious # crime that can have enduring effects," said James McGuire, counsel # to Mr. Pataki. "When there is proof of perjury, the integrity # of the criminal justice system demands that prosecutions should # be brought in appropriate cases." # # But defense lawyers who were involved in those cases said the # governor's proposal would make it harder to exonerate inmates # convicted on false testimony, not easier. # # "This would discourage people from coming forward and admitting # to perjury," said Michelle Fox, a Legal Aid Society lawyer who # helped clear Jeffrey Blake, one of the men convicted of murder # on Mr. Garner's testimony. "In the Blake case, I actually sent # a copy of the statute of limitations to Dana Garner to show him # that he couldn't be punished for coming forward, which he was # very afraid of." # # Mr. McGuire called that "a speculative and ill-founded objection," # in part because district attorneys can offer witnesses immunity # from prosecution if they come forward to change their testimony. # "I don't think that there's any real likelihood that any of those # people who are recanting are acting with a knowledge of whether # there's a statute of limitations or not," he said. "They're # motivated by conscience." # # Charles J. Hynes, the Brooklyn district attorney, said through # a spokesman, Kevin Davitt, that he supports the governor's plan. # Mr. Davitt said that in several instances, when convictions were # overturned years later, "We would have liked to prosecute those # witnesses for perjury, but we couldn't." # # The defense lawyer Ronald Kuby said he, like Ms. Fox, opposed # the idea, adding, "What we need is a statewide second-look unit # that would review cases where there's a question about guilt." # # Mr. Kuby recently secured the freedom of two men who were # convicted of murder based on the perjured testimony of a crack # addict seeking a reward. # # The governor's proposal would also apply to people who falsely # testify to protect defendants - witnesses who provide phony # alibis, for instance. Many lawyers say that is a far more common # practice than lying to convict someone. # # Mr. McGuire said removing the statute of limitations could give # prosecutors a second chance at some defendants. If, years after # an acquittal, new evidence of guilt is found, a prosecutor might # be able to use that evidence to build a perjury case. # # The governor, a Republican, will add the perjury provisions to # a bill he has already submitted to the Legislature that focuses # on uses of DNA evidence in court, a bill that has been stalled # in the Democrat-controlled Assembly. # # The bill would expand the databank of DNA samples the state takes # from people convicted of violent crimes to include people # convicted of all crimes, including misdemeanors. It would also # eliminate the statute of limitations for some violent crimes, # including rape. And it would create a state committee to determine # how DNA evidence can be used, systematically, to prevent and # reverse false convictions.

1 0

FOR THE BELIEVERS
by Rachael Riley 14 Jun '01

14 Jun '01

Thought you might be interested in this program. It will cost you $10 and some time and effort. *****************VERY IMPORTANT***************** Please read this message entirely at least once.Read it a 2nd and even a 3rd time to make sure you understand it BEFORE doing anything. If it appears familiar to you, NOTE that there are RADICALand MAJOR changes incorporated here. IT'S NEW! *********************************************************************** Hello! If you need to make a few thousand dollars REALLY FAST, then please take a moment to read this simple program I am sharing with you. You DO NOT have to send $25 to five people, buy their reports or recipes or anything like that. Nor will you have to invest more money later to get things going. THIS IS THE FASTEST, EASIEST PROGRAM YOU WILL EVER DO. Spend a few hours on it and you will never forget the day you first received it. The following is a plan to benefit you and your future. BE PREPARED TO GET EXCITED...YOU WON'T BE DISAPPOINTED! Read the following and you will agree this is a very exciting opportunity. Only invest a little bit of time, and your reward could mean thousands of dollars! *********************************************************************** IT'S OUTRAGEOUS!!! With two hours of work I have made over US $22,000 in the last three weeks..and my investment was just $10!!! I LOVE IT! Thank you 22,000 times! Julie M. St. Louis *********************************************************************** ARE YOU IN NEED OF MONEY RIGHT NOW? HOW DOES $20,000 IN TWO WEEKS SOUND? Don't laugh! Try this for a change while you wait for the others to start working. One hour of work to get started and no mailing lists! *********************************************************************** Esquire Marketing Newsletter Gift Club This service is 100% legal (Refer to US Postal and Lottery Laws, Title 18, Section 1302 and 1341, or Title 18, Section 3005 in the US code, also in the code of federal regulations, Volume 16, Sections 255 and 436, which state a product or service must be exchanged for money received) *********************************************************************** Here's How It Works Unlike many other programs, this three level program is much easier and much, much faster. Because it is so easy, the response rate for this program is VERY HIGH AND VERY FAST, and you will see results in two weeks or less! Just in time for next month's bills! With this NEW VERSION, a major objection to participation has been eliminated. NOW a BUILT-IN MECHANISM against CHEATING has been introduced! You only mail out 20 copies (not 200 or more as in other programs). You should also send them to people who send you their programs because they know these programs work and they are already believers in the system! Besides, this program is MUCH, MUCH FASTER and has a HIGHER RESPONSE RATE! Even if you are already in a program, stay with it, but do yourself a favor and DO THIS ONE as well. START RIGHT NOW! It's simple and takes a very small investment. It will pay off long before other letters or programs even begin to trickle in! Just give ONE person a $10 gift. That's all! Follow the simple instructions and in a few weeks you will have THOUSANDS of DOLLARS in your bank account! Because of the LOW INVESTMENT, SPEED, and HIGH PROFIT POTENTIAL, this program has a VERY HIGH RESPONSE RATE! Just one (1) US $10 bill. That's your investment! *********************************************************************** Follow These Simple Instructions 1) E-mail the person on position #4 with the subject header"REMITTANCE INQUIRY". In the body of your email, type the information contained in position #3. Then add below the last line the note "Did you receive your $10 from the person mentioned above?" 2) When you have received positive confirmation from the person on position #4, then you may proceed as follows: On a blank sheet of paper write "Please add me to your mailing list" and "E-mail me to confirm your receipt of my $10 remittance". Write your name and address clearly and include your email address for confirmation mailing and courtesy follow ups. Fold it around a US $10 and send it to the FIRST name on the list (#1). IMPORTANT: Wrap additional paper (black colored paper is ideal) so that the $10 inside can not be seen when your letter is held against a strong light. This is to prevent thievery! SEND YOUR LETTER VIA FIRST CLASS REGISTERED MAIL. Only the first person on the list gets your name and a ten dollar gift. 3) RETYPE only the list. Move the FIRST (#1) NAME to the FOURTH (#4) position. Move the SECOND (#2) and THIRD (#3) NAMES UP and ADD YOUR NAME to the list in the THIRD (#3) position. NOTE: Only the fourth (#4) name in the original list is dropped. 4) AFTER you have received the e-mail confirming receipt of your remittance (you may make a courtesy follow-up after 1 week if necessary) SEND out 20 copies of your edited letter. NOTE: by sending this letter via EMAIL, the response time is much faster, and you save the expenses of envelopes, stamps, and copying services. Consider this, MILLIONS of people surf the internet everyday, all day, all over the world! Fifty thousand new people get on the internet every month! An excellent source of names is the people who send you other programs and the names listed on the letter they send you. Your contact source is UNLIMITED! It boggles my mind to think of all the possibilities! Mail, or should I say E-mail, your letter TODAY! It's so easy. *********************************************************************** How to EDIT the original letter: 1) Go to "edit" and select all 2) Go to "edit" and "copy" 3) Start (compose) a new Email message 4) Address your Email and Subject blocks 5) Go to "edit" and "paste" After you have pasted this article to your new Email, delete the old header and footer (Subject, Date, To, From, etc.) Now you can edit the names, addresses and e-mail addresses with ease. *********************************************************************** THERE'S NOTHING MORE TO DO. When your name reaches the first position in a few weeks, it will be your turn to collect your gifts. The gifts will be sent to you by 1,600 to 2,000 people like yourself (average accomplishment rate is 20 - 25 percent), who are willing to invest US $10 and a few hours to receive anywhere from US$16,000 to US$20,000 in cash. That's all! I think it's WORTH IT, don't you? GO AHEAD--TRY IT. IT'S ONLY US $10! EVEN IF YOU MAKE JUST 6 OR 7 THOUSAND, WOULDN'T THAT BE NICE? IF YOU TRY IT, IT WILL PAY! - - - - - - - - - TRUE STORY- - - - - - - - - Cindy Allen writes: I ran this gift summation four times last year. The first time I received over $14,000 in cash in less than two weeks and over $20,000 in cash in the next three times I ran it. I can't begin to tell you how great it feels not to have to worry about money anymore! I thank God for the day I received this letter! It has truly changed my life! Don't be afraid to make gifts to strangers--they'll come back to you in ten-fold. So let's keep it going and help each other out in these tough and uncertain times. - - - - - - - - CAN I DO IT AGAIN?- - - - - - - OF COURSE YOU CAN--this plan is structured for everyone to send only 20 letters each. However, you are certainly not limited to 20. Mail out as many as you can. Every 20 letters you send has an average return between $16,000 and $20,000. If you can mail forty, sixty, eighty, or whatever, GO FOR IT! THE MORE YOU PUT INTO IT THE MORE YOU GET OUT OF IT. Each time you run this program, just follow steps 1 thru 4 and everyone on your gift list benefits! Simple enough? You bet it is! Besides, there are no mailing lists to buy (and wait for), and trips to the printer or copier, and you can do it again and again with your regular groups or gifters, or start up a new group. Why not? It beats working! Each time you receive an MLM offer, respond with this letter! Your name will climb to the number one position at dizzying rates. Follow the simple instructions, and above all, PLEASE PLAY FAIR. That's the key to this program's success. Your name must run the full gamut on the list to produce the end results. Sneaking your name higher up on the list WILL NOT produce the results you think. The BUILT-IN MECHANISM against cheating will FRUSTRATE the cheaters! So please, play by the rules and the $$$ will come to you! - - - - - - - TRY THE PROGRAM TODAY - - - - - - - $$$$$$$ Together we will prosper! $$$$$$$ *********************************************************************** #1 Tony Osbourne 15 Hampton Pl Brooklyn NY 11213 E-Mail: tonyosbourne(a)yahoo.com #2 Tamekia Lovett 324 Bainbridge St. Apt 2A New York, NY 11233 USA E-mail: zavasia98(a)yahoo.com #3 Cameron Prince 1745 President St Apt 2J Brooklyn NY 11213 E-Mail: cam76(a)prodigy.net #4 Khalid Camitri PO BOX97 Tzafone Yehuda Tekoa,Israel 90908 E-mail: killacam(a)metconnect.com *********************************************************************** Wishing you the best in all you do! You probably don't believe this will work, but if you don't try it you will never know. That's the way I felt. Try it. You won't be sorry. You will receive this email only once...If you would like to be removed send an email to ricrly2000(a)yahoo.com with the subject remove. Let's get back what we spent in the Internet. "PUT LOVE WHERE THERE IS NO LOVE AND YOU WILL DRAW OUT LOVE." *********************************************************************** This is not SPAM. We have made business contact in the past-either we have answered one another's ads or we belong to the same opt-in list. This is a one time mailing. Removal instructions are prvided but not necessary. ***********************************************************************

1 0