- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Max's Lesson (was Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI)
by Tyler Durden 25 Mar '04

25 Mar '04

Max wrote... "I mean, The Just-Us system's "only be for us peasants, right, massah?"." Nice little lick there. I also think that some cypherpunks mistake the Corporate State for what has been described as Crypto-Anarchy. If large corporations in the US and the wealthy happen to ultimately drive the current roundup of civil rights, then they've effectively become the state that some Cypherpunks some vehemently despise. Pointing this out (or at least making the case that this is the state of affairs) should not by any means be equated with socialism (unless of course you actually believe the socialists who maintain this is an inherent byproduct of capitalism). In fact, it's easy to argue that the current Oil Crusade in Iraq is precisely for the purpose of protecting a set of dinosaur industries in the US. That's not the kind of capitalism I think most Cypherpunks espouse. -TD >From: baudmax23(a)earthlink.net >To: cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net >Subject: Re: Max's Lesson (was Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to >the FBI) >Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:30:17 -0500 > >[snide preposterous presumptions deleted to save space] > >In response to "R. A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com>: > >I did not in any way or form, either explicitly much less implicitly, make >any claim for the expropriation of money from wealthy persons in any form, >much less by the state. Much as you'd like to presume that I am just some >"socialist" and rant on from there; Whatever you feel you must do to avoid >the point. > >The point was that there are a thousand other injustices, such as civil >asset forfeiture, which effect and have been effecting people of all >economic strata for over a decade now (and a lot of other governmental >connivances, such as RICO anti-racketeering, and drug prohibition, from >which it was spawned). Things that routinely effect not just the Martha >Stewarts, or the so-called investor class. Things from which spring forth >the presumptive powers which now also threaten the investor class, who had >not resisted earlier and deeper erosions of their civil liberties. Things >about which the wealthy (and politicians) don't give a rats ass about, >because they are a privileged class, by and large, and the laws generally >are not applied equally to them as to others. So why should they care? >Until one of them has to take a fairly minor fall, and then it's crocodile >tears, and poor Martha! Oh the injustice of it all! Screaming meamies, >that oh God, how dare they apply the same laws against the wealthy they >have been abusing the peasants and workers with all these years?! The >travesty of it! You see, people like you only have a problem when you >can't "buy your way out of trouble". I mean, The Just-Us system's "only be >for us peasants, right, massah?". > >Martha is just a token sacrifice for appearances sake, to appease the >masses and protect the status quo from any serious reform. So Martha goes >to Club Fed for a short stint, and business basically goes on as usual. Is >it Justice? Nah, Just-Us.. maybe, especially if it maintains the privilege >system intact and beyond serious scrutiny or reform. > >It is rather telling that you have completely sidestepped anything I >mentioned (aside from making false assumptions). > >At 05:49 PM 3/24/2004, , "R. A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> wrote: > >>So, Max, as a socialist, an unwitting user of such lies as >>"movement", or "(un)just state", as someone who believes that the >>*earned* property of "the rich" should be confiscated, or that > >There we go with nonsensical presumptions and stereotyping again. I could >pull out my own label for you my friend, but that would be really >pointless. I believe that earned property of ANY strata of society should >be safe from arbitrary seizure or confiscation. It is rather amusing how >you have put words in my mouth which are not there, and then spend all your >time kicking down your own non-existant straw man. > >You want to mock "justness" of the laws of the State...? Well then, what is >your beef about Martha then? If the state is inherently a manifestation of >unjust cronyism (as you seem to claim), does that become an argument that >somehow we should NOT strive to make the system MORE uniformly just and >therefore abuse of power less common and arbitrary? I mean, that's just >the way it is... but then, you shouldn't be whining about poor Martha. >That's just the way States are, you know. But I guess we come back to the >double standard, and as long as the "wealth exemption" comes into play, >then you really don't concern yourself with such an "inherently socialist" >(as you might say) concept as JUSTICE? > > >>"marketing" should be controlled by force, welcome to the other side >>of the looking glass. The *real* side of the looking glass, I might >>add, where the "justice" of the state is simply another not-so-polite >>fiction to keep power. > >Alas, you were so quick to falsely label me a socialist, that you did not >read what I wrote. Needless to say, I in no way called for any such >"forceful" control of "marketing" as you inventively and deceptively >implied. Not to worry, I try to buy as little meaningless shit as possible >from this disposable vacuous society. But at the same time, I encourage >people to see the emptiness for what it is. The things you own end up >owning you, and it can all blow away in a storm faster than you realize >(therefore, governments and insurance). Bread and circuses is a sure >signpost on the way down, we've seen it before. Avoid facing reality long >enough, and the head kick of reality will be that much more forceful when >it finally comes. Like chickens coming home to roost.. kind of like what >we are currently experiencing... but I digress... > >>Hanging out on this list is a sure cure for such mental delusions. It >>worked for me, anyway. :-). > >Worry not, that I have no delusions that this "System" in any way >represents me, much less has the slightest concerns about civil liberties >or any of the foundational concepts upon which this country was >philosophically based, much less the most basic sense of honesty or simple >humanitarianism. And by humanitarianism, you don't have to feed, clothe, >etc everybody at "taxpayer expense", however, a good start would be a much >better discretion about how our nation haphazardly flings around bombs and >destabilizes large swaths of the globe. Our congress, etc are bought and >paid for, and both (dictated-media-viable) sides at that. Corporate Clown >A (Bush) or Corporate Clown B (Kerry). Corporations that, by their >"perpetual" nature and concentrated wealth, have subverted our system by an >inappropriate and unjustified percentage of "representation", that violates >the conecpt of one man one vote, and perverts and distorts our government >into sheerly absurd tyranny. > >See, for all the hee-hawing of the investor thief classes about >presumptions of "worth" and "value" which is oftentimes claimed as earned, >but quite often is fraudulently swindled from the hard work of others, and >the bland assurances that "this is all good for us", yet our senses tell us >that things are in decline. We as a nation are less stable, less secure, >and most people are working much harder, for much less; courtesy >WorldCom/Enron/Tyco/Parmalat thievery. Outsourcing is an excellent example >of just such a swindle -- a devaluation of labor for short-term profits, >which will only lead to massive wage erosion, decline of the standard of >living in the west, and a subsequent economic decline as working people can >no longer afford housing and basic necessities. All and well and fine that >the corporates do not see the storm rising, from their outsourcing, and how >it will cost them very dearly in the coming future. The so-called "war on >terror", beyond being a perpetual war-profiteers wet dream, is the >smokescreen being used to raise up a militarist police state to suppress >the coming domestic instability which will inevitably arise from a massive >decline in the American standard of living. > >>You might, in the meantime, try Googling "crypto-anarchy" or >>"anarcho-capitalism" and/or "cypherpunks", or "Tim May" and >>"cryptonomicon" (no not *that* cryptonomicon, the *original* one...), >>which will probably, in the process, find you a currently working >>version of several archives of this list that have arisen over the >>last decade. I'd start at the beginning, around September 1992. > >Kind of busy reading more practical material, such as the intricacies of >smashing stacks and bypassing filters, or timely and relevant, such as "The >Sorrows of Empire" by Chalmers Johnson. > >>It's not that hard. You only need to read the first two months of the >>archives before things start to repeat themselves. ;-). > >If I want repetition, I can just watch CNN (or buy a parrot), thank you >very much! > > > >>Cheers, >>RAH > > >Max > > _________________________________________________________________ Get reliable access on MSN 9 Dial-up. 3 months for the price of 1! (Limited-time offer) http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup&pgmarket=en-us&ST=1/go/onm00200361ave…

1 0

how do you say "All your royalties are belong to us" in Navajo?
by Major Variola (ret.) 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

Appeals Court Lets Interior Computers Back Online, Despite Judge's Security Concerns By Robert Gehrke Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Interior Department will go back online after an appeals court Wednesday blocked a judge's ruling that ordered most of the department's computers disconnected from the Internet. It took the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit just three hours to grant the government's request to restore the Interior's Internet access. It had been shut down since March 15 to protect money owed to American Indians from computer hackers. The shutdown disrupted public's access to Interior Department Web pages, land managers' communications, disbursement of mineral royalties to states, and education of children in Bureau of Indian Affairs schools. Interior Secretary Gale Norton said she was pleased with the appeals court decision and will continue pushing for a permanent reversal of the Internet shutdown. "Meanwhile, tonight we have begun to restore our Internet connections across all impacted agencies of the department and will work quickly to restore them to pre-March 15 levels," she said. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the shutdown after the Interior Department failed to show it had fixed security problems that left vulnerable to Internet security breaches millions of dollars in royalties from oil, gas, timber and grazing activities on American Indian lands. <snip> http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA1RPI38SD.html

1 0

RE: Max's Lesson (was Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI)
by Tyler Durden 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

"In fact, a *moral* argument can be made that restraint of that information is more fraud than trading on that information to begin with. Morally -- if morality caused markets and not the other way around :-) -- "insiders" should be *obligated* to trade on "inside" information as soon as they believe that information to be true." To some extent this is already touted as a long-term issue here on Wall Street. The biggest example is when one company is doing "due diligence" when contemplating a purchase of another. During that process that have a (legal) level of access to information that does not exist elsewhere. During that time, then, they have the info-advantage that can be directly exploited during the deal and that causes bizarre pricing. As I've said before, if we had a true blacknet, where even options could be traded, then no deal would ever suffer from the advantage of hidden info...they'd all be priced far more fairly, and the little 401K retirees would actually benefit greatly. As for the notion of a state being INHERENTLY "evil", I'm still not convinced. At least, if I WANT to be butt-humped by the state, then it's OK, right? -TD >From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net >Subject: Max's Lesson (was Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the >FBI) >Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:49:48 -0500 > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >At 2:30 PM -0500 3/24/04, baudmax23(a)earthlink.net wrote: > > >movement > >bZZZT. -10 pts., Hackneyed Socialist Cliche. > > >unjust state > >Bzzt. -10 pts., Bad grammar. Redundant phrase. > > > <eat the rich...> > >Bzzt. -20 pts., Innumeracy, Economic ignorance. > > > <marketing is evil and must be controlled> > >Bzzt. -20 pts., Totalitarian will to power. > > >...I think we'll stop there, in the interests of, um, intellectual >charity... > >Score: 40/100. F. > >Game over. Thank you for playing, Max. > > > >And now for a little post-mortem, shall we? > >It's all about property, Max. You know, the stuff you *earned* by >personally altering reality to such a favorable degree that other >people to *pay* you to keep you doing it? It's also about freedom. >You don't get freedom, from "god", or from laws, or from "movements", >or a "just" state, or any*body* else. You get freedom by defending >*yourself*. Your *self*, Max. > > >*All* states, Max, are about taking your money at the point of a >weapon of some sort. They're *all* unjust, just like the theocracy of >the dark ages was irrational and innumerate. Of course, life isn't >fair, much less "just". But, in the particular case of states, we pay >force-monopolists because they will, ultimately, kill us if we don't. > >OTOH, if states kill us all, they won't have anyone to steal from, >preventing their market from achieving equilibrium. > >:-). > > >Martha, of course, is, politically, culturally, the epitome of >hypocritical, liberal-socialist scum. > >However, the "laws" (virtually unpromulgated, and certainly >unlegislated "regulations", not actual laws; doesn't keep them from >sending you to jail, of course, but they weren't legislated: there >are too many of them to vote on, for starters...) they were *trying* >to convict her on were completely ridiculous in their intent and evil >in their consequence. > >First off, information, like money, is fungible. It is *impossible* >to keep information, "insider", or any other kind, out of the price >of an asset. The minute that information is credible and known to >*anyone* "insider" or not, the price of the asset will begin to >reflect that information, if only by insiders not *buying* that >asset. > >In fact, a *moral* argument can be made that restraint of that >information is more fraud than trading on that information to begin >with. Morally -- if morality caused markets and not the other way >around :-) -- "insiders" should be *obligated* to trade on "inside" >information as soon as they believe that information to be true. Call >it financial Calvinism, kinda like Tim's saying he's morally >prohibited from helping liberals, and the otherwise-damned :-), >achieve their own salvation. > >Think about it this way: the "crime" of "insider" trading didn't >exist until 1962. We've *always* had capital markets, of one form or >another, and insider trading, in *every* civilization, since the >first agricultural surplus was put into a grain bank and exchanged >for goods and services. It is impossible, I would claim, to have >civilization without capital markets. Even Stalin -- especially >Stalin -- had to have recourse to capital markets to stay in >business. Go read up on a guy named Ludwig von Mises, and pay >particular attention to the words "calculate" and prices, and the >impossibility of using both in a meaningful, logical, sentence, and >you'll figure out what happened to Stalin's successors. Mancur >Olsen's "Power and Prosperity" wouldn't hurt either. > > >The fact that the most plutographic, nepotist, crypto-aristocratic >"liberal" political dynasty in this country's history made its >seed-money first on bootlegging, but, most importantly, on >pre-market-crash 1920's "insider" trading, and that the progenitor of >that dynasty was, later, the first Chairman of the Securities and >Exchange Commission, speaks more to the folly, if not actual evil, of >capital market regulation, much less "insider" trading, than anything >I could say here. > > > >Finally, if you're stupid enough to believe "marketing", you deserve >to buy what they sell you. Hell, if you're happy doing so, it's >nobody's business but yours. Your property is your property. Trade it >for what makes you happy. > >Just don't pass another goddamn law. Please. Physics causes Politics, >not the other way around. Change reality, write code, discover a new >market, whatever, and the law will change accordingly. Change reality >enough, and maybe we won't need law to enforce, say, the >non-repudiation characteristics of our transactions, and people like >Martha, god forbid, won't go to jail because nobody will *know* >whether someone used "inside" information or not. > > > >So, Max, I hate to break it to you, but you seem to be a socialist, >to use the more pleasant of several pejoratives. Not the end of the >world, you probably don't call yourself one, and you may not even >know you are, because socialism is about as ubiquitous today as >theocracy was a thousand years ago. As Perry Metzger noted somewhere >else a little while ago, back then one was either in favor of God, or >the Devil, and anyone who said that both were just fictional >characters in a book rather quickly became toast on a stick. > >Just like back then, these days there are people who believe one is >either in favor of "democracy", or socialism. Anyone who believes >that both are just a fig-leaf for expropriation and refuses to >cooperate with that expropriation quickly becomes a guest in >state-run accommodations. > > >The average person in the dark and middle ages believed that physics, >and all information and learning, came from an information monopoly, >represented by a book in a language they couldn't read in a stone >building built with their "tithed" slave-labor. > >The average person in these innumerate economic dark-ages believes >that economics -- or "justice", or a "fair" allocation of material >resources, whatever those mean -- comes from whole libraries full of >paper printed by what I would call an artifact of now-devolving >human-switched hierarchical information networks. > >A thing that, even more than the theocratic feudal lords of old were >able to do, forcibly confiscates half the average person's income and >spends it mostly on the maintenance of its cronies and foot-soldiers, >but also on lowering the costs of its physical control by eloquent >fraudulent justifications for its theft. Telling them lies about how >powerful it is, like their dark-age theological progenitors did about >their fictional character controlling the physical universe. The >chief lie of all is that it has the absolute ability to control asset >prices, by, of all things, taxing their sale, or, just as ludicrous, >capriciously "regulating" their production, invariably to the >advantage of its cronies and not the consumers of that asset. > >That "thing" is, of course, the "public thing", res publica, if you >will, the latest wrinkle on good fashioned modern force-monopoly, a >thing that spontaneously -- like all real markets do, like, say, >those for capital :-) -- arose when ur-agricultural-age bandits >figured out they could steal *more* money if they simply didn't move >anymore. > > >So, Max, as a socialist, an unwitting user of such lies as >"movement", or "(un)just state", as someone who believes that the >*earned* property of "the rich" should be confiscated, or that >"marketing" should be controlled by force, welcome to the other side >of the looking glass. The *real* side of the looking glass, I might >add, where the "justice" of the state is simply another not-so-polite >fiction to keep power. > >Hanging out on this list is a sure cure for such mental delusions. It >worked for me, anyway. :-). > >You might, in the meantime, try Googling "crypto-anarchy" or >"anarcho-capitalism" and/or "cypherpunks", or "Tim May" and >"cryptonomicon" (no not *that* cryptonomicon, the *original* one...), >which will probably, in the process, find you a currently working >version of several archives of this list that have arisen over the >last decade. I'd start at the beginning, around September 1992. > >It's not that hard. You only need to read the first two months of the >archives before things start to repeat themselves. ;-). > > > >Cheers, >RAH > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: PGP 8.0.3 > >iQA/AwUBQGIQhsPxH8jf3ohaEQLFOwCgrkhGvSTclKRU6ourGKGKOjC46EIAoPnp >3LUbroEIsFZJjB7popxeS30X >=yQsM >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >-- >----------------- >R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> >The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> >44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA >"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, >[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to >experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' > _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee. Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

1 0

the gestapo & the inquisition
by Major Variola (ret.) 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

The abuse called the grand jury has been detailed here before. The fun continues. Mar 24, 2004 Attorneys to Argue Palestinian Activist Suffers From Mental Problems The Associated Press CHICAGO (AP) - Attorneys for a Palestinian activist jailed for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating the militant group Hamas said Wednesday they intend to argue the man suffers from mental problems that prevent him from understanding court orders. Abdelhaleem Hasan Abdelraziq Ashqar, a former college professor from Alexandria, Va., was indicted on charges of criminal contempt after he refused to testify before a grand jury investigating fund-raising activities on behalf of Hamas. http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA6YQF28SD.html

1 0

Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI
by Tyler Durden 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

"Its a sign of John's early Alzheimers, when he lets his wealthwrath get in the way of his one-time pristine appreciation of civil liberties." Well, I don't know Variola...I don't actually see much in that post that violates that. In fact, kinda sheds some light on what might have triggered this particular violation. If she's going to start rubbing elbows with the Old Money like she always wanted then she can't be attracting a lot of attention. I would not be suprised one bit to find out some suggestions were made...toss the public a token psuedo-WASP so they won't think the Sandy Weils and Dennis Kozlowskis are being unfairly targeted... At least it's food for thought, even if you puke it up. -TD >From: "Major Variola (ret)" <mv(a)cdc.gov> >To: "cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net" <cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net> >Subject: Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI >Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:37:58 -0800 > >At 09:38 AM 3/24/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: > >Gotta say that's a nice, high-grade no-baby-powder rant Mr Young. >Worthy of > >an "East Coast Collectivist"... > >Its a sign of John's early Alzheimers, when he lets his wealthwrath >get in the way of his one-time pristine appreciation of civil liberties. > >------ >"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so >let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the >second will not become the legalized version of the first." >Thos. Jefferson > _________________________________________________________________ Find a broadband plan that fits. Great local deals on high-speed Internet access. https://broadband.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/

2 1

Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI
by Major Variola (ret) 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

At 09:38 AM 3/24/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: >Gotta say that's a nice, high-grade no-baby-powder rant Mr Young. Worthy of >an "East Coast Collectivist"... Its a sign of John's early Alzheimers, when he lets his wealthwrath get in the way of his one-time pristine appreciation of civil liberties. ------ "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." Thos. Jefferson

2 1

Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI
by Gil Hamilton 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

If they want to do some good, how about investigating these criminals? http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/0304/23senators.html Have to confess I'm a little confused, though. On the one hand, the article insists they broke no laws; on the other, it says they "trade on privileged information not available to the public." Isn't this the very definition of insider trading? Isn't it what they were originally pursuing Martha for? - GH _________________________________________________________________ Check out MSN PC Safety & Security to help ensure your PC is protected and safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp

1 0

busted for keycatcher
by Major Variola (ret.) 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.latimes.com/news/local/orange/la-me-wiretap24mar24,1,760243.stor… Man Indicted in Wiretap Case The defendant is accused of recording the computer keystrokes of a workplace colleague. By Regine Labossiere Times Staff Writer March 24, 2004 A Huntington Beach man Tuesday became the first person in the nation to be charged with illegally using an electronic device to record someone's computer keystrokes, according to the U.S. attorney's office. A federal grand jury in Los Angeles indicted Larry Lee Ropp, 46, on one count of wiretapping, said Thom Mrozek a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles. When Ropp worked at Bristol West Insurance Group/Coast National Insurance Co. in Anaheim, he secretly installed a "Key Katcher" into the computer of the vice president's secretary, Mrozek alleged. The device was plugged into the computer to record every keystroke the secretary made, he alleged. Ropp was fired in September for violating the company's time-clock policy, Mrozek said. After he was fired, Ropp called a company employee and asked her to remove what he called a "toy" from the computer. The employee told her supervisor, Mrozek said. The firm's technology department found that the device was not a toy, Mrozek said, and called the FBI. Bristol is involved in a class-action civil suit brought by former employees. Information from FBI interviews suggested that Ropp was trying to obtain information for the plaintiffs in that lawsuit, Mrozek said. Ropp could not be reached for comment. Mrozek said devices such as the Key Katcher are commercially available and are legal as long as they are used on personal property. Parents sometimes use them to monitor their children's computer activity. The devices can be used to steal private information, company secrets and passwords. Ropp was arrested Feb. 25 and released on bond that day, Mrozek said. A conviction could bring Ropp a maximum of five years in federal prison. Because the computer was hooked up to the Internet and was connected to company branches in Arizona and Florida, Ropp was indicted under federal law, Mrozek said. Ropp admitted to the FBI that he used the Key Katcher, but he said the California Department of Insurance had hired him as a whistle-blower. Department representatives denied that claim.

1 0

Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI
by Tyler Durden 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

"market aint bankable. The Stewart story is a cover-up, didn't you know it? All these commiserators don't work for nothing." Gotta say that's a nice, high-grade no-baby-powder rant Mr Young. Worthy of an "East Coast Collectivist"... -TD >From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)Algebra.COM >Subject: Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI >Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:53:25 -0800 > > >Why pity Martha Stewart, so far she's escaped the pokey, >despite first wide-mouthed reports was sentenced to 20 >years, then that was shaved to half, then further trimmed >to a few years, to settle somewhere between probation >and walking free, maybe even suing the feds for defamation, >loss of wealth, and, if truly not a super bitch of riches, >overthrowing the government. > >Martha may yet reap the benefit of adoration of the >fabulously wealthy, who always get a cut in slack, to be sure >paying for it with small handouts and tips, and having to >hide the trappings of disproportionate moola once the >lesson is learned to not new-rich flaunt it -- build a church >for every yacht. > >The old rich know to lay low, let the new mints take the >hit, maybe even report the most vulgar to the authorities >to camouflage deeply embedded thievery with shallow. >One is known to get up in fund-raising fetes to say "My >family foundation gives a million," to prime the yokels' 50K. >Then gets a cut of the take, like Paulie. > >Sure, it's hell being a criminal capitalist in the US, where >profligate display of stupidly expensive over-priced doohickies >is all the numbnuts can think to do with more money than >they ever dreamed of having, or ever dreamed of having >taken from them by venal racket protectors of their horde. > >Prosecutors and FBI can never do as much harm to the rich >as their immediate family, associates, lawyers, doctors, >lovers, underlings, servants, bodyguards, alarm installers, >not to say treacherous architects of their panic palaces. > >Just pay your inflated bill, you PoS, sweetheart tips on the > >market aint bankable. The Stewart story is a cover-up, >didn't you know it? All these commiserators don't work >for nothing. > > _________________________________________________________________ Find a broadband plan that fits. Great local deals on high-speed Internet access. https://broadband.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/

1 0

Man convicted of Internet betting free from prison in Nevada
by R. A. Hettinga 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

<http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/20040323-1349-nv-internetbets.…> SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Technology Wednesday, Mar. 24, 2004 Man convicted of Internet betting free from prison in Nevada ASSOCIATED PRESS 1:49 p.m. March 23, 2004 LAS VEGAS - A man convicted in what was believed to be the first Internet sports betting trial has been released from federal prison after serving an 18-month sentence. Jay Cohen, founder of World Sports Exchange in Antigua, left the minimum-security Nellis Federal Prison Camp north of Las Vegas on Monday. "I still maintain I ran a legal business in another country," Cohen told the Las Vegas Sun. "I regret that I did not get a fair trial or a fair appeals process." After being released, Cohen left for Oakland, Calif., to spend 30 days in a halfway house. Cohen also will spend two years on probation. Cohen was charged in March 1998 with violating the U.S. Wire Act and was convicted in New York federal court in February 2000. A year later, a federal appeals court upheld Cohen's conviction. Lawyers for Cohen had argued he did not break the law because his business was based in Antigua, where betting is legal. They also argued that New York, where many of the customers lived, allows certain types of wagering, such as off-track betting. Cohen's partners, Steve Schillinger and Haden Ware, have remained in the Caribbean, continuing to run the business. Authorities cannot arrest them unless they return to the United States. Cohen said he believes he will be vindicated when the World Trade Organization in late May decides a case brought by Antigua against the United States over the offshore betting issue. If the organization rules in favor of Antigua, Cohen believes "it will open cross-border gambling and the United States will no longer be able to harass offshore operators." Gaming lobbyist Frank Fahrenkopf Jr., president of the American Gaming Association in Washington, D.C., said the ruling won't have that much power. "There could be some sanctions on U.S. products (traded) with Caribbean nations and it might put some pressure on Congress, but I doubt that will happen," Fahrenkopf said. Fahrenkopf said the U.S. Justice Department has long operated on the premise that wire laws from the early 1960s make it a crime for offshore casinos to take sports wagers from the United States. He noted the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a Louisiana ruling that Internet sports wagering is permitted on casino-type games but not on sporting events, which bolsters the government's position. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0