- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: FW: City Tree Rapers
by CeejEngine＠aol.com 10 Jun '01

10 Jun '01

In a message dated 6/10/01 12:33:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com writes: > The Bill of Rights actlly grants no rights, it only limits what the > government may do with respect to defining/restricting them. See 9'th and > 10'th. It in effect sets out a list of prohibitions of things that > can't/shouldn't be done. I challenge you to uafind a single 'assignment' > sentence in the first 10 amendments. > > With respect to the laws of the states, the Constitution only(!) > stipulates that the federals must guarantee them to be representative. It > Sorry, poor choice of language on my part. True, the bill of rights doesn't actually *assign* rights- it prohibits the federal government from making any laws that restrict them. Reading from amendments 1-10, and the othe articles of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states- and this was legal fact until the passage of the 14th amendment. But that 14th stated that (paraphrasing here) "no state may deny a citizen due process of law". The Supreme Court interpreted this (in effect, adding foot notes to the constitution) to mean that the Bill of Rights now applied to the states. I know that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that "states must honour the bill of rights". But look in Supreme Court decisions (which, legally, are pretty much an extension of the constitution). There, it is *clearly* stated that the Bill of Right's restrictions of the federal government's powers applies to the states as well. So when you say that the Constitution only says that states laws must be representative, you are ignoring the 14th amendment, and what it does to the relationthip between state governments and their citizens. But yeah, that's all I'm trying to say. Enough is enough. Ender

2 1

Re: FW: City Tree Rapers
by CeejEngine＠aol.com 10 Jun '01

10 Jun '01

In a message dated 6/9/01 11:53:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com writes: > > In a message dated 6/9/01 11:35:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > > ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com writes: > > > > > > > Bullshit, the 1st makes no such distinction. With respect to libel, or > any > > > other form of speech it only says it isn't a federal issue. Note that no > > > > > > > Yeah, but then you've got the 14th, which has been used to apply the Bill > of > > Rights to the states (due process clause), so that means that no gov. can > > restrict free speech. As for libel, its damn hard to make stick- public > > figures have a hight standard, which includes proving actual malice. Fun > > times. > > But the 14'th only speaks of 'priviliges and immunities' it never(!) uses > the term 'right' and a right is clearly not a privilige or immunity (read > the first two para's of the DoI for explanation of 'right'). > > If anything the 14'th would prevent states from making any(!) laws > Right, reading it literally. But the supreme court has interpreted the "due process" clause to include rights granted under the bill of rights (using the incorperation doctrine). I know it isn't in the 14th itself, but the way the court has interpreted it has given it this meaning. Look at New York v. Griswold (i think) for a good example of this. The court applied unreasonable search and siezure to a state using the 14th. The same goes for free speech. Ender

2 1

Substantive Due Process
by Jim Choate 10 Jun '01

10 Jun '01

The problem with the due "Process Clause" is it injects a false distinction with respect to 'types' of rights. See the first two sentences of the DoI for a clarification of the only operable definition of 'right' acceptable in the American Democratic Experiment. http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/sdp.htm -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ "...where annual election ends, tyranny begins;" Thomas Jefferson & Samuel Adams The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

- 3 steps to WEALTH!!!!!
by Founder 10 Jun '01

10 Jun '01

Are you READY TO EXPLODE YOUR INCOME????? Three Simple Steps 1. PRE ENROLL AT www.hugedownline.com 2. Listen to the OVERVIEW-858-824-3543 3. go to: www.hugedownline.com/signup.htm to complete your enrollment! Its That Simple!!! Prooven Company Prooven System BIG MONEY!!!! To stop additional follow up messages click below: http://www.aweber.com/r.php?i=hotfreshleads&e=cypherpunks%40ssz.com

1 0

MLM and Network Marketing Failures Wanted!
by residualincome4you＠excite.com 10 Jun '01

10 Jun '01

Removal Instructions are at the end of this letter. Thank you. MLM and NETWORK MARKETING FAILURES WANTED Are you one of the ten million brave individuals who have tried MLM or Network Marketing without, let's just say, "setting the world on fire?" But no matter what you do, you can't let go of the Belief that there must be some way, some how for you to reach your goals and begin fulfilling your financial dreams. "If others can do it, why can't I?" I asked myself a million times.... Perhaps you've asked yourself the same question (?) Here's why most people without a System Fail: Most of us aren't experts at marketing. We have a staff of full time marketing EXPERTS Dedicated to helping You! We don't like to sell. In our company, you don't have to sell anything to anyone, We're not experts at "closing the sale". Our Professional Staff will "Close" all of your prospects for you. We don't know where to get quality leads. We can provide you with all of the Qualified Leads you could ever want. We don't know what to say. You don't even have to speak with your prospects if you don't want to. We have live customer service "angels" who take care of everything for you. Our uplines generally don't know anymore than we do. You don't have to rely on your "upline." That's why we employ the finest customer service reps in the world. We don't have a SYSTEM which works for everyone, all of the time. If you don't have a "SYSTEM" that works for EVERYONE 100% of the time, you may as well bet your money, time and credibility on the 7th horse in the 7th race at Belmont :-( We have "THE SYSTEM" Everyone Has Been Waiting For! No Selling! No Meetings! No Phone-Calls! Low $32 Qualifier! We place at least 3 people on your team BEFORE YOU JOIN! Massive Spillover is Occurring in May 2001. Please click on this link MailTo:residualincome4you@excite.com?Subject=Request_Info_Power_System to Receive the Details on the Hottest, Easiest to Duplicate System in the World! Let's Get Started Helping You to Begin Making All Your Dreams Come True, TODAY! You are receiving this message because you have either subscribed to one of my ffa-pages, newsletters or we have corresponded in the past. I respect your privacy. If you do not wish to receive any further messages or updates, please respond to this e-mail with the subject line "remove" and we will immediately remove your e-mail address from our database. To speed up your remove request please make sure you place the word remove in the Subject Line, not in the body of the e-mail. Thank you.

1 0

Re: FW: City Tree Rapers
by CeejEngine＠aol.com 10 Jun '01

10 Jun '01

In a message dated 6/9/01 11:35:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com writes: > Bullshit, the 1st makes no such distinction. With respect to libel, or any > other form of speech it only says it isn't a federal issue. Note that no > Yeah, but then you've got the 14th, which has been used to apply the Bill of Rights to the states (due process clause), so that means that no gov. can restrict free speech. As for libel, its damn hard to make stick- public figures have a hight standard, which includes proving actual malice. Fun times. Ender

2 1

DC Cir: FTOs & due process
by Aimee Farr 09 Jun '01

09 Jun '01

NAT'L COUNCIL OF RESISTANCE OF IRAN v. DEP'T OF STATE http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/dc/991438a.html#Footref2 DC Cir.: putative foreign terrorist organizations with a US presence, not necessarily a "substantial" presence, are entitled to notice and hearing prior to FTO designation. See also, http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/fto_info_1999.html I seem to remember some AEDPA discussions in the archives. AEDPA provides that all persons within or subject to US jurisdiction are forbidden from "knowingly providing material support or resources" to designated FTOs (among other penalties). The review process includes classified materials, so it has been the subject of some FISA-like controversy. This case concerned the designation of an "alter ego" FTO, and is interesting from several angles. ...particularly this one, if you read between the lines. >From the opinion: ================= <snip> To oversimplify, assume the Secretary gives notice to one of the entities that: We are considering designating you as a foreign terrorist organization, and in addition to classified information, we will be using the following summarized administrative record. You have the right to come forward with any other evidence you may have that you are not a foreign terrorist organization. It is not immediately apparent how the foreign policy goals of the government in general and the Secretary in particular would be inherently impaired by that notice. It is particular- ly difficult to discern how such a notice could interfere with the Secretary's legitimate goals were it presented to an entity such as the PMOI concerning its redesignation. We recog- nize, as we have recognized before, that items of classified information which do not appear dangerous or perhaps even important to judges might "make all too much sense to a foreign counterintelligence specialist who could learn much about this nation's intelligence-gathering capabilities from what these documents revealed about sources and methods." Yunis, 867 F.2d at 623. We extend that recognition to the possibility that alerting a previously undesignated organiza- tion to the impending designation as a foreign terrorist organization might work harm to this county's foreign policy goals in ways that the court would not immediately perceive. We therefore wish to make plain that we do not foreclose the possibility of the Secretary, in an appropriate case, demon- strating the necessity of withholding all notice and all oppor- tunity to present evidence until the designation is already made. The difficulty with that in the present case is that the Secretary has made no attempt at such a showing. We therefore hold that the Secretary must afford the limited due process available to the putative foreign terrorist organization prior to the deprivation worked by designating that entity as such with its attendant consequences, unless he can make a showing of particularized need. [...] ~Aimee "For holding conversation in suspicious places, whips may be substituted for fines. In the center of the village, an outcaste person may whip such women five times on each of the sides of their body."

1 0

is this test working
by scum 09 Jun '01

09 Jun '01

Getting zero Posts, is the roof on hospital? Dick Laurent is a day dreamer

1 0

Homeland Defense and the Prosecution of Jim Bell
by John Young 09 Jun '01

09 Jun '01

http://cartome.org/homeland.htm "So, say goodnight to Joshua ..." Homeland Defense and the Prosecution of Jim Bell Deborah Natsios Cartome 8 June 2001 A sparsely attended trial which unfolded in Tacomas US district courthouse the first week of April 2001 hardly seemed an event that might open a small but revealing view onto the shifting national security apparatus. But to outside observers following the criminal prosecution of Washington State resident Jim Bell, accused of stalking and intimidating local agents of the IRS, Treasury Department and BATF, the defendant was a symptomatic target, and the governments stated case against him only a fragment of a more complex campaign linked to the evolving landscape of national and homeland defense. In the governments estimation, Bell had placed its Pacific Northwest agents "in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury"1. But for some trial-watchers, the case against James Dalton Bell, 43, was underpinned by a constellation of factors that made him more than the disaffected neighbor projecting antigovernment bile. Bell had invited the governments fullest prosecutorial zeal because his technical skills placed him in more ambiguous terrain, that of untested gray zones within emerging national defense landscapes, which, by calling into question the impregnability of the national border, have been taking national security tactics incountry in unprecedented ways, deploying new rules of engagement to challenge national security threats within the US domestic interior. Chapters: Homeland WarCoast Cypherpunks PosterBoy Joshua Tacoma Doppleganger BattlespaceSuburbia Holdout

1 0

None
by Nomen Nescio 09 Jun '01

09 Jun '01

> John Yeomans wrote: > > Send me the instructions to make a stink bomb > please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get a male skunk and a female skunk and breed them. Have a 'stinking' good time!

1 0