- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Janet Reno speaking at UC Berkeley Graduation, 9 May 01.
by Bill Stewart 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the University of California at Berkeley has selected Janet Reno to speak at graduation. The ceremony will be held at the Greek Theater on 9 May, and is only open to graduating students and their families (oh, well :-) The San Francisco Cacophany Society reports late-breaking news that a draft of her speech has been leaked to the public. "Welcome to the Class of 2001 graduation. "You have the right to remain silent......"

2 1

Tannering (Re: Cypherpunks, Feds, and Pudgyfaced Voyeurism)
by Public <Anonymous_Account> 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

>The "secret-admirers" list strips all headers (except the Subject:) from >submissions and is gatewayed to/from alt.anonymous.messages. The list Being subscribed makes one a member of the illegal Cypherpunk Movement, especially when the prosecution explains that the member explicitly and willfully sent the "subscribe" request. To anonymize posts, send through remailers. From an internet cafe*. To anonymize reading, go to the internet cafe*. Everything else is an illusion of safety. * gloves and disguise is recommended. I have already seen several customers with Groucho masks. BUT, On the other hand, a public 802.11 would be nice. Suppose that you can drive close to this building, connect with a laptop from the safety of friend's car, and the only thing that LAN allows you is to (a) send mail to one specified address and (b) browse one specific web site (inet-one). Then you drive away. The building is conveniently marked with small, hard-to-notice label "TANNER" on nearby objects. The visits shall be known as "tannering". Etiquette will require that you pretend not to notice others with laptops in the vicinity. For FBI trainees: start on pushing for new crimes: - driving with a loaded laptop - gathering in public place with laptops with intent to connect. - providing an open 802.11 node (ooops .. they are *all* open) For the FBI instructor: your mother is a whore.

2 1

Information Producers Initiative
by Seth Johnson 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

I thought you folks would be interested in the following initiative: I am starting a project called the Information Producers Initiative. I have pasted a draft of a basic position paper below. I would like very much if I could obtain comments on it, perhaps through this list and/or other public fora. It is a very general foundation on which specific policy positions are meant to be based. I am presently considering developing commentaries on HIPAA (a federal law addressing medical records privacy) and the Tasini and Napster cases. I am specifically interested in obtaining any information regarding other initiatives that might be similar to this, and what's been tried and what happened to these initiatives. I have set up a list for people who are interested in these matters. Subscription is by sending an email saying "subscribe C-FIT_Community" to ListServ(a)realmeasures.dyndns.org. Forward this message freely as you wish. The text below is also available at: http://RealMeasures.dyndns.org/C-FIT Thanks for your help, Seth Johnson Committee for Independent Technology seth.johnson(a)realmeasures.dyndns.org The Information Producers Initiative A Project of the Committee for Independent Technology The Committee for Independent Technology holds that a proper consideration of information-related public policy must focus on what the state of technology means for all citizens. We believe that a well-founded understanding of the condition in which citizens presently find themselves as a result of information technology, should focus on one fundamental principle. This principle is that information is used to produce new information. To put another cast on the same point, information that is accessible in whatever form has never merely served the purpose of consumption. This may seem to be an obvious point, but when it is considered in light of the new modes of public access that have developed, and the flexible means of using information that are now at hand, one sees that this principle is more important now than it may ever have seemed to be before. In the past, only specific groups of people, engaged in specific types of activities, had their interests assessed in terms of their capacity as information producers. The public at large has been treated as mere consumers of information in many areas, with public policy reflecting this tendency. Now, however, we all have the capacity to participate in the development of human knowledge, on a reasonably equal footing with all other citizens, because of the forms of access to the public sphere that are now available, and to the forms of information that may be found there, by means of public communications networks such as the Internet. This puts us all in an entirely new position with respect to our abilities to access, manipulate and produce information. We may now manipulate information in a profoundly flexible way. We may quickly access any work that is available electronically on public communications networks. We may, with great facility, decompose any digitized work into component parts. We may manipulate, analyze, synthesize, select and combine the conclusions, observations, discrete facts, ideas, images, musical passages, binary bits and other elements of any information in digital form. We may efficiently produce useful, meaningful and creative expressive works on the basis of this flexible access to information. But perhaps the most far-reaching way in which information technology affects our condition as citizens, is in the fact that we may all now distribute our information products to the public at large in a powerful and convenient manner that obviates the need to rely on publishers and other intermediaries who have traditionally provided public access to information producers. We must no longer allow our rights in the area of the access to and use of information and information technology, to be regarded merely as rights of consumption. All citizens must assure that policy makers no longer treat their interests in information merely with respect to their capacity as consumers. We must advocate for and guard our broader interests as information producers in equal standing in the public sphere, possessing essential powers and rights in the access, use and communication of information. The Committee for Independent Technology seeks to assure that the rights and capabilities of all citizens are not undermined through public policies that restrict the ordinary exercise of their rights to access and produce information by flexible means.

1 0

Jim Bell Trial: Sixth Day
by auto211076＠hushmail.com 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

Sixth Day: Jim Bell Trial The judge started out by giving the jury a generally boilerplate set of instructions. Then London started his closing statement. He re-read the counts, and covered what the prosecution has to prove. He said that the government did not have to prove: 1. That the houses that Bell found were the correct houses for the people he was seeking. 2. That Bell had found the current home address of Gordon and McNall. 3. That Bell had gotten within a certain physical distance of Gordon and McNall. 4. That Bell was armed or actually dangerous. 5. That Bell intended to harm or had the physical ability to harm. 6. That the people that Bell checked out had to know that they were being pursued before being informed by Gordon. London spoke of Bell's propensity for records collection, calling it the "obsessive" activity of "a grown man of 43 living with his parents." London read count one again and encouraged the jurors to write down the numbers of the exhibits as he mentioned them. He first listed exhibit 134, send 11/4 from Bell's home in Vancouver. It had to be Bell's home, London said, because the email had Bell's IP address on it. London said that if Bell had problems with surveillance or Ryan Lund, he should have filed a law suit, and gone through the "regular process." London then tied more of the exhibits to the other counts. London argued that the government didn't have to prove that Bell's only purpose was to harass, that the jury only had to find that one of his purposes was to harass." London urged jurors to verify Bell's credibility and "what his intent was against his personal history over the last four or five years." London noted the conflict between the secrecy that Bell wanted in his communications with McNall and Gordon and his postings on the internet and efforts to get John Branton to publish information about his investigations. London then talked about the cypherpunks, "whose unifying belief is the encryption of email with keys or PGP. "Why couldn't Bell send agent Gordon or agent McNall an encrypted email so that they could communicate and share the code between them?" (At this point, it was clear that London has no idea how PGP works, to say nothing of the likelihood that agents McNall and Gordon have published their keys- if they even have them.) London brought in exhibits from 1996 that showed that Bell wanted to obtain and publish home address of IRS agents. Bell hadn't changed his ways since then, and that "he still intended to harass." Bell had failed to recant AP. As far as Bell's intention to picket Gordon's house? "What is the purpose? The office is the appropriate place to picket?. What is the purpose of picketing someone's house? Harassment. Purely harassment." London accused Bell of trying to set up plausible deniability, which he defined as always being able to mask true intent, always being able to come up with a believable explanation for what one is trying to hide. He said that Bell was not honest about his actions or intent, that he was engaging in plausible deniability, that Bell's research was to provide plausible deniability for harassment. London discounted Bell's credibility because he was less cooperative on cross-examination than he was in answering questions from his own attorney. London tagged AP as the basis for all episodes of harassment. He said that AP was really closer than ten or fifteen years, because Bell had claimed in 1997 that it was seven to 10 years away. (This was an interesting play on "if you kill the messenger, you kill the idea" theory, an interesting attempt since on the internet, everything stays up forever according to the prosecution.) At this point, Bell said, "You're lying." Tanner asked him if he wished to be removed?" Bell apologized. Tanner, miffed, said "Forget about apologies! Do you wish to remain?" Bell responded "I wish to address the jury." Tanner said that he didn't ask that, that he asked if Bell wished to stay. Bell meekly said that he wished to stay. The judge declared a 15 minute break. As Bell was being escorted by US marshalls from the courtroom, he tried to hand a document to McCullagh and was prevented by the marshalls from doing so. Bell protested, "You've allowed me to talk to him before, why can't I talk to him now?" When court reconvened, London tied up his closing statement. He pointed to Bell's mention of PCBs in an email on 10/24/2000, shortly before he took actions. London said that the evidence established Bell's intent not beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt. "Bell did not get the message because it came from people he does not trust- judges and law enforcement. Now he needs to hear it from people he does trust-12 ordinary citizens." London asked the jury to convict Bell on all five counts. Leen started his closing statement by calling his client a brilliant man with a brilliant mind, a disturbed mind. He told the jurors that they had to follow Tanner's instruction to follow the law as the judge gave it, that the jurors must not be influenced by likes or dislikes. Then he tore into London's last statement: "If a man is scary or poses a future danger, it's not your job to deliver the government's message to Mr. Bell." The jury was only there to decide if the defendant is guilty or not guilty only on the charges, and was not on trial for anything else. Mr. Bell was not on trial for common law court membership, for writing Assassination Politics, for writing "Operation Locate IRS," visits to Groener or the other Gordons. Certain things, Leen said, are not evidence. Attorney arguments are not evidence. Jurors decide what to believe based on common sense. Leen defined circumstantial evidence. In this case, jurors have to deal with circumstantial evidence. The jury was there to find guilt, "not to find that the defendant is wrong, bad, or scary." Then Leen went through each count, saying that the government had not proved Bell's intent. Leen called his client's mental state into question. He said that people feared someone like Bell "because they think normally? they don't think like Mr. Bell thinks." He asked the jury how they know intent. "Mr. Bell was trying to prove that the cause of the failure of his life was not his own but the government's." Bell's intent was to put the puzzle together and prove his case to people who would listen. Leen said that the government had to prove intent. Bell's thought processes were different than normal, and that the government's use of plausible deniability was a bald attempt to get the jury to believe that Bell was lying. But Bell was telling the truth as he knows the truth. The only decision that the jurors had was "Did Mr. Bell have a certain mental intent, and intent to harass?" Leen said that his client was difficult to interview for defense preparation, that Bell claimed that Leen threatened to kill him and his family. "I don't mock him, I pity him? Look to the evidence. Just because it's reasonable for Jeff Gordon to be afraid doesn't mean that Bell had an intent?. The government has failed to proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Bell's purpose was to harass, and that purpose was to expose, to prove that he was right." London got the last word in, according to Federal Court rules. He brought up two points: 1. Mr. Leen characterized Bell as having a flawed mind. This was not London's characterization. He said that Bell knew the difference between right and wrong. 2. "Mr. Bell's investigation to the extent that it took him to the doorsteps of people that he found was a form of harassment." Bell committed a crime just by entering onto private property. "Bell had to know that collecting addresses of IRS agents was itself harassment." Tanner then issued his last four instructions: 1. The jury had to decide what testimony to believe. In doing so, they were to consider a) was the witness able to see or hear the evidence that they testified to; b) was the witness accurately able to recall the evidence; c) what the witness' manner was; d) witness bias or prejudice; e) reasonableness of testimony; and f) whether the witness' testimony was contradicted by other evidence. 2. The weight of each side's case was not determined by the number of witnesses. 3. The jury cannot consider the punishment when deciding on a verdict. 4. The verdict must be unanimous. Two jurors were then excused. They both smiled and looked relieved. The jury went into the jury room at 1:30. At 3:30 they passed a note to the judge, saying that they wanted a definition of intent, and that they wanted a legal dictionary and the legal definition of intent. Dictionaries aren't allowed in the jury room. Leen moved that the court provide a definition of intent. London objected, saying that the definition was in the instructions as knowledge. Leen suggested to the judge that he define intent as "acting with object and purpose to commit a crime." London: "Tell them it's in the instructions." Tanner decided to tell the jurors that the definition is in the instructions. At 4:30 p.m., the jurors passed a note to the judge. Bell was brought back to the courtroom, and while waiting, he joked that he expected to be acquitted on some counts, that the jury "would split the baby down the middle." The judge re-entered the courtroom at 5 p.m., and read the note. The jurors had voted unanimously for a guilty verdict on counts 2 and 3, and were hung 11 to 1 on the remaining counts. Tanner sent the jury back to the jury room. Tanner brought up that there was a form issue in the note (which becomes part of the court record). Leen said that the note published the count of the juror's votes and moved for a mistrial. Denied. Tanner asked about the law on partial verdicts. He decided to call the jury back in and poll them on counts two and three and the form of the verdict, and have the jury fill out the proper form. The jury was polled and excused. None looked happy, and none had looked at Bell during either before, during, or after the polling. Tanner set sentencing for July 6. Leen moved for dismissal of counts 1, 4 and 5. London asked Tanner to dismiss without prejudice so that the government could refile the counts. Tanner dismissed without prejudice. Leen moved to dismiss counts 2 and 3 on the basis of jury prejudice. Denied. Tanner granted Leen 10 days to file for a new trial. London said that he wanted the court proceedings copy back from the defense. He moved to have Bell's notebook and other exhibits sealed. Tanner: "I don't think I have the authority to do that. Do I?" London: "I'm not sure." Tanner: "Order [to seal] goes [applies] to jurors, period." Free, encrypted, secure Web-based email at www.hushmail.com

1 0

RE: distance learning
by techteachers92010＠yahoo.com 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

Found a search page that has a lot of info for distance learning. I also came across a new site for people looking for educational related products and services. http://www.maplesearch.com/maplesearch/Top/Reference/Education/Distance_Lea… http://www.schoolbuyersonline.com/ -Erica Oeastro

1 0

Watercooler �4.95/week with unlimited water!
by info＠aforsale.co.uk 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

Yes it's true! We really can supply you with a mains fed hot and cold watercooler for just �4.95 per week! (+ VAT). This will give you unlimited chilled and filtered on tap in your workplace. These high specification units are manufactuin Korea and using the latest technology and environmentally friendly refrigerant. They come in a floor standing or a desk top model. Pressure Coolers Ltd (formerly Watercoolers Ltd) have been in this business for over 30 years and specialize in plumbed in watercoolers. The price includes delivery anywhere in England (call for prices rest of UK), installation by our own engineers (as long as we can find a main water supply within 3 metres), sanitization and filter changes every 6 months and maintenance. We use Everpure 0.5 micron filters. You will not have any other costs to pay. It is invoiced quarterly in advance. Minimum contract period 1 year. If you don't believe it, ask for a free trial and find out! For further details, check our website: www.pressurecoolers.co.uk We look forward to hearing from you. Pressure Coolers Ltd Unit 30 Bourne Industrial Park Bourne Road, Crayford, Kent DA1 4BZ Tel: 01322-528888 Fax:01322-521828 mailto:pressurecoolersltd@supanet.com Further transmissions to you by the sender of this email may be stopped if required at any time by just clicking on the link below and sending the eMail. To be Removed from this Mailing list click below and send eMail mailto:remove@aForSale.co.uk?subject=remove

1 0

Jim Bell Trial: Fifth Day (fwd)
by auto211076＠hushmail.com 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

Fifth Day: Jim Bell Trial Before the jury came in, Bell stood up and told the spectators that his attorney had relayed a threat to him from the US government. The threat was directed at him and six members of his family, he claimed. On Sunday, he said he tried to call 20 attorneys on the unmonitored attorney line at the Seatac Detention Center. He also asked spectators to call Jonathan Solovy, 206-621-8777. The jury was shown in and Bell took the stand again. Bell had been quite affable, friendly, and forthcoming in his testimony on Friday. In his testimony today, he was visibly upset. His answers to questions posed by his own attorney were considerably less fluent, sometimes poorly constructed and, too often, not well thought out. Upon taking the stand, Bell turned to the jury and told them that his attorney had made threats against him. Some of the jury looked visibly shocked. Despite this, Leen started asking Bell to explain why he was trying to find Mike McNall. Bell said that he wanted to talk to him about Ryan Lund. His research indicated that Lund was a government informer. McNall was the only named agent involved in the search of Lund's home in 1997. Leen himself was more abrupt with Bell. While Leen (and Tanner) had allowed Bell to expound at length on Friday, on Monday Leen interrupted Bell more frequently, cutting Bell's answers short. Tension was evident in Leen's voice. Bell said that the end result of his research would be to report his findings to reporters John Branton at the Vancouver Columbian and John Painter at the Oregonian. Leen asked Bell about the fax that Bell sent in October, 2000, to Jeff Gordon at his office. In the fax, where Bell was trying to arrange delivery of his firearms to a qualified third party, he told Gordon that he could pick them up at Gordon's office or swing by Gordon's home. That he mentioned coming by Gordon's home was the basis of Count 3 of the indictment. Leen quizzed Bell about Count 4, based on Bell's action of driving to Bend, Oregon, to check out what he believed to be a potential CIA operation. Bell wondered if the address listed in the .gov domain database was commercial or residential. Bell addressed the Count 5 charge, where on November 10, 2000, he left a note on the Groener's cars to call Branton. Bell said that he was familiar with the law enforcement trick of arresting someone on a Friday, so that they would be in jail and isolated through the weekend. Since his home had been searched the previous Monday, he expected that he would be arrested that Friday. So he drove down on Thursday night to leave a note for the only people that he'd actually contacted during his travels to try to get Branton to follow up on the McNall connection. Concerning the "say goodnight to Joshua" email, Bell said that he wanted to turn the tables on those that he believed were closely monitoring him, proving that he could monitor them as well. (Joshua is the son of a Jeffrey Gordon, not the IRS agent). Bell said that he was convinced that federal agents had monitored him from two houses in his neighborhood, putting a small camera on one neighbor's house. When talking about the Gordons, Bell admitted that he had stolen the mail from the Gordons' mailbox. (He did this without prompting from his attorney; later his attorney told reporters that this had been quite a surprising revelation.) Bell said that he wanted to further prove that his house was being watched. He spoke of an incident where he stuffed some newspapers in his home's fireplace insert and lit them in plain view of a large picture window. During the subsequent raid a few days later, agents asked Bell's mother if they could take a sample of ashes from the fireplace, though no such item was on the search warrant. Bell believe that this confirms surveillance from a neighboring house. Mr. Leen said he had only one more. Bell spoke loudly: "Mr Leen, you do not represent me at this point." Bell said that he had six more hours of testimony, naming names, dates, incidents, and places where government agents had done surveillance on him. Leen asked: Have you committed any crimes? Bell: "Other than the incident with the mail and traffic, certainly not!" On cross-examination, London asked Bell if he thought he had committed any crimes. Bell responded by saying that he no longer had representation, and that he reserved 5th amendment rights. Tanner asked the jury to leave the room. He asked Bell: "Do you intend to voluntarily answer some questions from the government?" Bell said that he would. Leen moved for a mistrial, and asked for a psychiatric exam. Both motions were denied. Leen moved to withdraw as attorney. Also denied. The jury was recalled. On questioning by London, Bell stated that he had a right to use the DMV database both as a first amendment issue and as a protective measure. London asked what Scott Mueller had to do with protecting himself. Bell responded it had nothing to do with it, that he was just checking out information. London angrily demanded "How is it any of your business to take personal information and publish it? To out Mr. Mueller or anyone else as a CIA agent on the internet?" Bell defiantly replied: "It's not MY business." He said that he answers a lot of questions on the internet, and that he was merely curious. London brought up a form that the DMV database vendor normally has people sign when purchasing the database. Bell said that he certainly made no promise to the vendor that he would use the database only for commercial purposes. London introduced a document that shipped with the database, a blank agreement to that effect. Apparently Bell had never signed such an agreement, which in earlier years had not been required. London mentioned Bell's conviction in 1997 on obstructing IRS laws by collecting the addresses of IRS agents. Bell replied that most of the 1997 plea agreement, where he agreed with such statements, was not true because he signed the agreement because he had been threatened by two people, Billy Martin and Valdez Maxwell. [Bell's attorney sank lower in his chair at this point; he was probably dismayed by his client's apparent self-destruction.] Bell went on to say that Leen had conveyed a threat by Maxwell to him, and that Leen didn't want Bell to talk about surveillance in today's testimony. Bell said that furthermore, he had been denied access to evidence. (This was a valid claim by Bell; Tanner had issued a court order that while Leen could view prosecution evidence in pre-trial, Bell was not permitted to see it.) London had Bell confirm a number of inflammatory emails written in 1996 about "Operation Locate IRS." Bell continued to say that he couldn't be sure about the evidence, since he'd been denied access to it. Asked if he had been accurately quoted in the Wired articles, Bell replied that he believed that McCullagh had accurately quoted him. London asked Bell why he didn't file a motion to overturn the guilty plea? Even though he's filed pro se motions in this case? Bell replied that he didn't know that he could do that. The jury recessed for lunch. Tanner took a few minutes to chew out London for leaving the podium in the middle of a question. London had frequently moved from the podium to the prosecution table to confer with Gordon during the proceedings, and Gordon often whispered in London's ear information or questions that London appeared to repeat when he went back to the podium. The court recessed for lunch. When the jury returned, London asked about the "Joshua" email. Bell said that he posted the email to "test" whether agents had been following him. He said that he didn't post the (other) Gordons' address to cypherpunks because it wasn't necessary. London pointed out that Bell did not use the words "research" and "investigate" in some email that London read to the court. Bell asked if it was necessary to mention those words in each and every email to validly investigate. When London asked Bell if he understood the difference between a "duly sworn law enforcement officer" and himself when it came to investigation, Bell said that he investigated "because somebody has to do this." Bell became increasingly defiant to London as the questioning progressed. London asked what Bell did with the mail. After visiting the Gordons, Bell said that he started home, stopping at a McDonald's on the way. There he opened the mail, copied some information into his notebook, and tossed the mail into a McDonald's trash can. Bell was dismayed by the reception that he got from reporters. He said that Branton seemed totally uninterested in his story, and that he had no luck interesting other people, including Declan McCullagh, in investigating the story, so he had to do it himself. "Sometimes you have to take things into your own hands." London asked Bell what he intended to do when he found Gordon's home address. Bell said that he was going to picket Bell's home, and said that picketting was a time-honored method of protest. Why not picket him at his office at the federal building in downtown Portland? Bell responded that picketting outside such a big office building was ineffective. London then asked about the concept of "plausible deniability" that had occasionally been discussed on the cypherpunks list. Bell tried to explain the concept, but appeared emotionally strained and did not give a clear explanation. London then asked Bell about the financial affidavit that Bell filled out prior to getting a court-appointed attorney. Bell said that he didn't have an attorney, that Leen no longer represented him. Leen objects to London's line of questioning anyway on the grounds that it wasn't relevant to the case. Denied. London said that Bell did not disclose all sources of income. Bell had a trust account maintained by Jay Marvin Benson, and received distributions of $2,000 per month during summer, 2000. The trust owns 1,852 shares in the Templeton Emerging Markets Fund. The jury was sent out. Bell said that he declined to answer because he's not represented, and took the fifth amendment. Leen objected, saying that the matter of Bell's affidavit was a collateral matter. Tanner asked London: "Isn't this beyond the scope of this examination?" London said that the affidavit concerns Bell's credibility and that he had committed perjury. Tanner: "Isn't that a separate charge?" London: "Not yet." Tanner said that London couldn't bring it up because it was not direct examination and upheld Leen's objection. The jury was brought back in; Bell left the stand; the jury was dismissed for the day. London and Leen then wrangled over the instructions Tanner would give to the jury the next day. London proposed changing instructions for counts 1, 2, 4 and 5 to strike the words "injure and" from "crossing state lines to injure and harass." He said that he believed at the start of the trial that the government could prove intent to do injury. Leen wanted to include an instruction that speech which did not cause immediately lawless actions was covered by the first amendment, that investigation was covered by the first amendment. He cited the recently overturned 9th District Planned Parenthood case. London argued against including that instruction because Bell didn't just engage in speech, he took actions to find agents home addresses and post them to the internet. Tanner asked: "Isn't that free speech?" London said no, and said that whether Bell was engaging in free speech was a pre-trial matter, not for the jury to decide. Leen cited Aguilar and other cases that ruled that first amendment decisions are at the discretion of the jury. Tanner said that the first amendment argument could be invoked only if supported by the facts of the case. Leen argued that the Common Law Court was a political body, and that Bell was exercising his freedom of speech when he talked about AP at their meetings. Tanner asked him what the difference was between the cases where people killed abortion doctors and Bell's case. Leen said the difference concerned the right to protest. Tanner: "Protest by committing illegal acts?" London spoke up, saying that Bell could be charged because he trespassed on private property and stole mail. And he crossed state lines. Tanner asked if he knew of any cases at the appellate level, specifically the 9th circuit, that dealt with the consitutionality of the statutes under which Bell had been indicted. London said that there were no cases in the ninth circuit, but the statutes had been found constitutional in the fourth and eighth circuit. In response to London's statement that Bell trespassed on private property and stole mail, Leen said that neither the Gordons nor the Groeners were part of the counts. Mr. Bell's intent was not to harass, although Mr. Bell was unstable. "You have to take Mr. Bell as you find him." Leen said that Bell's intent fits in with his political views. London reiterated that the first amendment has never been used to justify trespass or mail theft. Tanner disallowed the first amendment instruction. Then he took up the matter of perjury: Was it a question of law or a question of fact. He said that it wasn't up to his court to decide it, and that it would have to be addressed by the district attorney. Leen asked the court to put in an instruction to find specific intent. London argued against that, saying that the ninth district disfavors specific intent. Tanner denied. Leen asked the judge to include an instruction that the jury not hold it against the defendant for invoking the fifth amendment. The judge said it would be included. Leen moved for dismissal based on unconstitutionality of the laws, and invoked Rule 29. London argued that the faxing took many deliberate actions. Tanner denied. London pointed out to the judge that although the defendant claimed to be unrepresented, he continued to confer with counsel throughout the afternoon. Court adjourned. Free, encrypted, secure Web-based email at www.hushmail.com

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks, Feds, and Pudgyfaced Voyeurism
by arcanum 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

Quoting Ray Dillinger <bear(a)sonic.net>: > On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > > >It's all so sad and predictable and sad again. The cypherpunks list > >had its glory days: Wired magazine cover stories, blossoming > >technology, and, yes, even those damnable tentacles. Now it's become > a > >convenient way for the Feds to land convictions. > > Perhaps it is time to consider a new and different mailing > list which accepts messages ONLY from remailers. It would > be publicly archived and unmoderated just as cypherpunks is, > and monitored by the lions just as cypherpunks is, but now > that the thought-crime laws are setting in full force, it > could provide a forum where there wouldn't be such a simple > evidentiary chain from post to poster. But how are we going to filter Choatian messages?

1 0

Rijndael
by Amir Barnea 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

First Rijndael Encrypted Website www.secure4net.com

1 0

Google Search: treas.gov tcs
by Jim Choate 12 Apr '01

12 Apr '01

Imagine that... http://www.google.com/search?q=treas.gov+tcs -- ____________________________________________________________________ The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone. James Madison The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0