- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Anonymicer
by Alex `Taker` Pircher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Protect your Privacy for FREE! http://anonymicer.home.ml.org/ (or http://anonymicer.home.pages.de/) * Surf anonymously - http://anonymicer.home.ml.org/ * Send anonymous Emails - http://anonymicer.home.ml.org/email/ * Post anonymous Messages into Newsgroups - http://anonymicer.home.ml.org/news/ Fast - Easy - Free Greetz, Taker pircher(a)informatik.tu-muenchen.de

1 0

CTIA Daily News From WOW-COM
by CTIA Daily News 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

======================================== Welcome to today's edition of the CTIA Daily News from WOW-COM. Please click on the icon for the most important news in wireless communications today. ========================================

1 0

NSA Declassifies Algos
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks to Ed Roback, NIST: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun1998/b06231998_bt316-98.html DoD Press Release, June 23, 1998: No. 316-78 IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 23, 1998 (703)695-0192(media) (703)697-5737(public/industry) ENCRYPTION FORMULAS DECLASSIFIED The Department of Defense today announced the decision by the National Security Agency to declassify both the Key Exchange Algorithm and the SKIPJACK encryption algorithm used in the FORTEZZA(tm) personal computer card. FORTEZZA(tm) provides security at the desktop in the Defense Message System and other DoD applications. This marks the first time that the NSA has declassified such information and made it commercially available. This declassification is an essential part of the Department of Defense's efforts to work with commercial industry in developing reasonably priced computer protection products. This declassification decision will enable industry to develop software and smartcard based security products, which are interoperable with FORTEZZA(tm). The availability of such products will enhance the protection of DoD's sensitive but unclassified and critical non-mission communications. The decision to release SKIPJACK (an 80 bit encryption algorithm that is not extensible to higher key lengths) and KEA (a 1024 bit key exchange algorithm) is restricted to these particular algorithms, and does not apply to other classified NSA algorithms. The SKIPJACK and KEA algorithms and their source codes have been declassified pursuant to Executive Order 12958. Vendors interested in obtaining more information on this matter should contact the National Security Agency Public Affairs Office at 301-688-6524. [End] ----- Note: We called NSA Public Affairs who said that more information will be available tomorrow afternoon on NIST's Web site (no specific URL): http://www.nist.gov In the meantime NSA will respond to faxed questions; send to: Vanessa Talieri Office of Public Affairs National Security Agency Fax: 301-497-2844

1 0

PGPdisk for win95/98?
by jkthomson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Great, so I finally get around to checking PGP's betaweb, and to my amazement, they finally have a beta version of PGPdisk for 95. Too bad it claims that I need to contact a sales rep, and when I follow their link, I get nothing that would really point me in the right direction. Any of you manage to get your hands on a copy? Currently, I am using bestcrypt NP with blowfish. I am a little concerned with this however, As I have never seen a crypto-review of the software, and their website is not too forthcoming with technical details, or known attacks. Does anyone have information (or horror stories) from using bestcrypt? --------------------------------------------------------------- james 'keith' thomson <jkthomson(a)bigfoot.com> ICQ:746241 jkthomson: C181 991A 405C EAFB 2C46 79B5 B1DC DB78 8196 122D http://www.bigfoot.com/~ceildh <keys> at pgp.mit.edu --------------------------------------------------------------- You can lead a man to slaughter, but you can't make him think. ================================================================

2 1

Creating Wealth In America
by unknown＠example.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Creating Wealth in America >From the desk of Robert Allen, The Author of 2 Mega Best-Sellers, Nothing Down and Creating Wealth in America San Diego, California 11:29 P.M. "I can't sleep until I get this off my chest." "I'm extremely frustrated". Odds are that nine out of ten people who receive this letter will discard it without a second thought. Yet, I know that I have discovered a secret that could change your financial life forever! And I'm willing to share it with you for FREE. Do you want to end your money pressures forever? Do you want to double your income? Do you want to build an extra stream of income quickly? If you answered yes, then let me show you how you can begin living your dreams, this year before it's too late. I'll get right to the point. As it says on the letterhead, my name is Robert Allen. I'm famous for my two #1 New York Times best-selling books. Nothing Down and Creating Wealth in America. There are lots of millionaires who credit their success to one of my books or seminars. So when I share this secret with you, I want you to know that I've done my homework. Here it comes. I have discovered what I believe is the perfect home-based business. Although I'm well known for real-estate investment books and seminars, this new business has absolutely nothing to do with real-estate. In fact, it's much easier and far less risky. It involves: -No employees -Little risk -Little start up cash -It's so simple, anyone can do it You could be earning $1,000 a week in as little as 90 days. One person I know went from zero to $3,000 a week in 60 days. That's $150,000 a year extra, hassle-free income! In my 20 years of research, I can honestly say, "I've never seen a faster, easier way to create a stream of income". I know this sounds too good to be true. Frankly, I didn't believe it myself at first. Finally, I agreed to check it out. As a test, I selected a small group of people and introduced them to this incredible opportunity. Almost immediately, many of them started earning profits. Within a week, many were earning incomes of $4,000 per month in net cash flow. Now, some of them are cashing checks for $3,000 a week. And this is just the beginning! Their earning potential could be unlimited! Would you like to learn how to do that? I'd love to show you how. But only if you're interested enough to make one telephone call. The number to call immediately is 1-888-267-4455. It's a 3-minute, 24-hour recorded message. This may be the answer you have been seeking. Warmly, Robert G. Allen P.S. I want to show you how to create extra streams of income quickly, Go to the phone and call now 1-888-267-4455. //

1 0

Re: Verisign & NAI Join Forces, PGP out the door? (fwd)
by Max Inux 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is what I was able to find out about the Verisign/NAI partnership. -- Max Inux (MaxInux(a)bigfoot.com) UIN: 207447, http://khercs.chipware.net Strong Cryptography makes the world a safer place- PGP: 0x5CCFCA59 Or Kinky sex makes the world go round- Christie: Your in my sig too ^^ If Cryptography is outlawed, only outlaws will have cryptography ^^ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 10:22:26 -0700 From: Jon Callas <jon(a)pgp.com> To: Max Inux <maxinux(a)bigfoot.com>, Sean_Paswater(a)nai.com Cc: chip(a)chipware.net, jon(a)pgp.com Subject: Re: Verisign & NAI Join Forces, PGP out the door? (fwd) At 08:10 PM 6/22/98 -0700, Max Inux wrote: Chip and Jon: Chip: Have any insight into this or is this gonna be like the TIS scare w/ Key Escrow? Jon: Since Chip will probably end up asking you or some of the other higher ups if he is unsure, Is there any truth to this story, or is this TIS #2? The tale is true -- it's the *interpretation* that's bogus. PGP is not out the door. PGP will be doing X.509 too. There's not a lot of difference between an X.509 certificate and a PGP key signature. They do the same thing. What you'll be able to do is have Verisign sign your key. The first steps of this are coming this fall -- you'll be able to drop an X.509 cert into your keyring and it will magically transform itself into a PGP key. At first, you'll only be able to use it with TLS (a.k.a. SSL), which is also coming this fall. Jon ----- Jon Callas jon(a)pgp.com CTO, Total Network Security 3965 Freedom Circle Network Associates, Inc. Santa Clara, CA 95054 (408) 346-5860 Fingerprints: D1EC 3C51 FCB1 67F8 4345 4A04 7DF9 C2E6 F129 27A9 (DSS) 665B 797F 37D1 C240 53AC 6D87 3A60 4628 (RSA)

2 1

QANTAS discriminates against Pauline Hanson's One Nation
by Global Web Builders 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear One Nation supporter in NSW, Qantas has banned coverage of Pauline Hanson and One Nation from inflight news. Qantas has effectively censored Channel 9's inflight coverage of Australian news and has, in effect, implied that there is something "distasteful" about Mrs Hanson and her political party. The action allegedly follows a complaint by a QANTAS staff member about coverage of Mrs Hanson being offensive to Indonesian passengers on an international flight. Pauline Hanson's political adviser, Mr David Oldfield, said it was "disgraceful, un-Australian activity asking Channel 9 to be political censors on behalf of Qantas. "Everything that is said publicly, people should have the right to judge for themselves whether something matters or doesn't," he said. "But it certainly isn't up to any airline or anyone else to decide that legitimate public debate isn't to be viewed." If you feel rightfully outraged by this act of censorship by Qantas (the Australian Airline) please contact them by email: qantasmedia(a)qantas.com.au I would encourage you to take a moment to express how you feel about this issue. Finally, please note Ansett have not undertaken censorship of this sort. GWB Scott Balson

1 0

Banning privacy: A radical proposal
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This came from Yahoo/ZDNet. Mr. Pappas suggests that we just ban anonymity and privacy to "protect the children." Now where have I heard that before? And yet again, the "Ethical Hackers Against Pedophilia" raise their heads, no pun intended. >Banning privacy: A radical proposal > >By Charles Pappas >June 22, 1998 >Yahoo! Internet Life > >Copyright (c) 1998 ZDNet > >Privacy and anonymity are our most cherished tenets of online life. A >need so immense that Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy >Information Center declared that we might need a kind of Department of >Privacy. He's not alone: 72 percent of surfers think there should be new >laws to protect their privacy. > >It's a radical, 180-degree turn to take, but...what if we're all wrong? >What if this belief that privacy + anonymity = social good has become as >self-destructive and delusional as a drunk who thinks one more scotch >will make him feel better? > >Like Marley's ghost, privacy may be coming back to haunt us. And that >ghost's name is pedophilia. How bad is it? Disguised as a 13-year-old, I >was directly propositioned on AOL in fewer than 10 minutes on each of >six separate attempts. I entered a chat room--usually called something >like "x9x10x11" or even "JonBenet Ramsey" (code words that alert >pedophiles where to swarm)--and waited for the assaults to start. > >Even when I didn't enter a chat room, the offers kept coming in from >pedophiles prowling for victims. One wanted to send me pictures of >himself. Another asked for a phone number. "I want to do my daughter," >one confessed to me. Later, when I searched for their screen names, they >had all disappeared into the anonymous electronic mist. > >AOL monitors kids' chat rooms continuously. (Parents can also set the >AOL software so their children can't use chat rooms.) "We have a >zero-tolerance policy when it comes to anything illegal," assures AOL >spokeswoman Tricia Primrose. "We have about 8,000 monitors scanning up >to 19,000 chat rooms, message boards, member profiles, and other areas. >When we get any kind of complaint, we immediately check it out. And >we're working with the FBI, customs, and other officials." > >It's not just AOL, of course. Child molesters "operate on every avenue >of the Net," says PhotonRain (not his real name) of Ethical Hackers >Against Pedophilia, a group that aids law enforcement in combating child >pornography. "WWW, newsgroups, IRC, ICQ, FTP servers..." > >We already know it's widespread and easy to encounter. But how often >have we heard--and parroted--the party line that problems on the Net >just reflect real-world problems, no more and no less? Holland slays >that sacred lamb: "The amount of pedophilia on the Net is extremely >disproportional to...society as a whole. They hide behind the anonymity >the Net offers. And they are aware of the small odds against being >caught." > >Ruben Rodriguez, director of the Exploited Child unit for the National >Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), concurs: "The Net is so >anonymous that molesters are very comfortable on it. They can go in and >hunt kids down, and attempt five or six seductions at the same time." > >"Let's face it," says a New York State investigator who requests >anonymity, "the Net's anonymity enables the sickness. In a couple of >hours I could easily get 2,000 pictures if I wanted, including the Baby >Rape series," a popular collection of pedophilia photos whose name is >horrifyingly self-explanatory. > >In recent weeks, U.S. authorities have helped nab 60 online molesters, >while the FBI reports that its 3-year-old Innocent Images >investigation--an online task force identifying predators--has resulted >in 184 convictions. An impressive stat, but less than confidence >inspiring when research suggests the average child molester will have >more than 70 victims throughout his lifetime. > >At the same time we splash sex offenders' names online, our lawmakers >weigh in with proposed privacy law after privacy law. "No one wants to >give up privacy," says NCMEC's Rodriguez, whose organization now runs a >CyberTipline for leads on the sexual exploitation of children. "But what >do you do when your laws and protections are turned against you? >Something's got to give." > >But what? Our conventional wisdom that privacy is worth any risks? Just >touching this petrified opinion will get me slapped with a swastika--but >as philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said, "All truth passes through three >stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, >it is accepted as being self-evident." > >To be continued--that's for certain. > >Copyright (c) 1998 ZDNet. All rights reserved.

4 3

Skipjack Up
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John, The files are up, and hopefully all working OK. See http://csrc.nist.gov/encryption/skipjack-kea.htm Ed Roback

1 0

nation's most secretive spy agency
by bill payne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Wednesday 6/24/98 8:03 AM Glave I am reading http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/13215.html I recevied a motion from US Assistant Attorney Mitchell yesterday in the mail. I haven't read it yet. Mitchell phoned on f 6/19. Mitchell told me she is moving to remand FOIA ALGORITHM request to NSA. I made a copy of the materials I received and sent them to John Young. I attach a copy of Morales and my complaint to the senate judiciary committee. This e-mail explains more about our interest in NSA. VISIBILITY. I do not have much interest in crypto. One of my problems is a REVERSE cyrpto problem. Trying to get people to read my geek books and obscure binary results. I MERELY BUILT CRYPTO DEVICES FOR NSA. And took a poke at NSA for trying to screw-up Sandia/DOE projects with bad crypto algorithm and implementation advice. http://jya.com/da/whpda.htm Especially in http://jya.com/da/whpda.htm#apps NSA has NO SENSE OF HUMOR. Pseudorandom numbers are close enough to crypto that I understand what the crypto people are doing. Morales and I want our money and out of this mess. Best Sincerely http://www.apcatalog.com/cgi-bin/AP?ISBN=0125475705&LOCATION=US&FORM=FORM2 Looks like we succeeded in getting others to read about the gfsr! In fact, Knuth included the gfsr on page 32 of his books series Art of Computer Programming: Vol 2 Seminumerical algorithms. This likely accounts for http://www-hto.usc.edu/software/seqaln/doc/html/gfsr.3.html Coauthor Lewis in the above is one of my former MS and PhD students in computer science. http://www.friction-free-economy.com/ Subject: Judicial Misconduct at Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:29:01 -0600 From: bill payne <billp(a)nmol.com> To: art morales <armoral(a)sandia.gov>, senator_hatch(a)Hatch.senate.gov, senator(a)thurmond.senate.gov, chuck_grassley(a)grassley.senate.gov, senator_specter(a)specter.senate.gov, senator_thompson(a)thompson.senate.gov, info(a)kyl.senate.gov, senator_dewine(a)dewine.senate.gov, john_ashcroft(a)ashcroft.senate.gov, michigan(a)abraham.senate.gov, senator_leahy(a)leahy.senate.gov, senator(a)kennedy.senate.gov, senator(a)biden.senate.gov, senator_kohl(a)kohl.senate.gov, senator(a)feinstein.senate.gov, russell_feingold(a)feingold.senate.gov, dick(a)durbin.senate.gov, senator(a)torricelli.senate.gov CC: steve dillingham <" Steven.Dillingham"@hq.doe.gov>, Robert Nordhaus <" Robert.Nordhaus"@hq.doe.gov>, mrgall(a)ix.netcom.com, jy(a)jya.com, art morales <armoral(a)sandia.gov>, federico pena <" Federico.F.Pena"@hq.doe.gov>, RJPARK(a)sandia.gov, cypherpunks(a)toad.com, ukcrypto(a)maillist.ox.ac.uk Monday 6/22/98 1:02 PM Senate Judiciary Committee http://www.senate.gov/committee/judiciary.html Republicans Orrin G. Hatch, Utah, Chairman senator_hatch(a)Hatch.senate.gov Strom Thurmond, South Carolina senator(a)thurmond.senate.gov Charles E. Grassley, Iowa chuck_grassley(a)grassley.senate.gov Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania senator_specter(a)specter.senate.gov Fred Thompson, Tennessee senator_thompson(a)thompson.senate.gov Jon Kyl, Arizona info(a)kyl.senate.gov Mike DeWine, Ohio senator_dewine(a)dewine.senate.gov John Ashcroft, Missouri john_ashcroft(a)ashcroft.senate.gov Spencer Abraham, Michigan michigan(a)abraham.senate.gov Jeff Sessions, Alabama Democrats Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont senator_leahy(a)leahy.senate.gov Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts senator(a)kennedy.senate.gov Joseph R.Biden, Jr., Delaware senator(a)biden.senate.gov Herb Kohl, Wisconsin senator_kohl(a)kohl.senate.gov Dianne Feinstein, California senator(a)feinstein.senate.gov Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin russell_feingold(a)feingold.senate.gov Richard Durbin, Illinois dick(a)durbin.senate.gov Robert Torricelli, New Jersey senator(a)torricelli.senate.gov Purpose of this e-mail is to give written proof of criminal judicial misconduct by Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals clerks Hoecker, Fisher, and Judges Moore, Barrett, Weis and help get this matter settled. Thursday March 30, 1995 I wrote Tenth Circuit clerk Hoecker to request a copy of the docket sheets for case 94-2205 Payne v. Sandia Corporation, et al Hoecker did not answer my letter. On Tuesday March 5,1996 I wrote Judge Lucius D. Bunton to ask his help to get a copy of the docket sheets. No response. On Monday September 23, 1996 Arthur R Morales and I wrote Henry A. Politz, Chief Judge U.S. Court of Appeals - Fifth Circuit to ask his help to get a copy of the docket sheets of my case and Morales Tenth Circuit case 95-2204. Tenth Circuit also refused to send Morales copies of docket sheets for his case. Politz is Bunton's boss. No response. Friday May 30, 1997 I wrote Antonin Scalia to get this help to get a copy of the docket sheets. No response. 5 May 1998 citizen John Young finds docket sheets on Source: PACER, U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, 1-800-279-9107 and posts them on Internet at http://jya.com/whp-10usca.htm Docket as of April 10, 1998 0:05 am Proceedings include all events. 94-2205 Payne v. Sandia Corporation, et al shows that I filed my Brief of the Appellant on 2/19/95. 2/23/95 [835344] Appellant's brief filed by William H. Payne. Original and 7 copies. c/s: y. Served on 2/19/95 Oral argument? pro se. Appellee/Respondent's brief due 3/24/95 for Thomas P. Wright, for Robert Surran, for Paul A. Stokes, for Mary J. Stang, for Tommy A. Sellers, for Craig A. Searls, for Albert Narath, for Preston B. Herrington, for Peter S. Hamilton, for Roger L. Hagengruber, for James R. Gosler, for Harold L. Folley, for Robert L. Ewing, for C. William Childers, for Harvey J. Brewster, for Sandia Corporation (mbm) mbm writes "Appellee/Respondent's brief due 3/24/95" Sandia had sent me a copy of its brief by 3/28/96. I filed attached MOTION TO GRANT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S DEMANDS ON BASIS THAT DEFENDANT-APPELLEES FAILED TO FILE BRIEF WITHIN 30 DAYS SPECIFIED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 31 on Tuesday the 28th day of March, 1995 My February 28 MOTION at the Tenth Circuit is filed WITHOUT notice of service logged. 4/4/95 [845484] Appellant's motion filed by Appellant William H. Payne [94-2205] to grant appellant's demands on basis that appellees' failed to file timely brief. Original and 3 copies c/s: y (mbm) In 1995 FRAP 25 (a) stated "[b]riefs shall be deemed filed on the day of mailing if the most expeditious form of delivery by mail, excepting special delivery, is used." FRAP 25 has been changed by 1998 to http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#25a Since I mailed Appellant's motion filed by Appellant William H. Payne [94-2205] to grant appellant's demands on basis that appellees' failed to file timely brief on 3/28/98, it is likely Sandia's lawyer Friedman received it 3/29/95. Tenth Circuit logs 3/30/95 [844759] Appellee's brief filed by Sandia Corporation, Harvey J. Brewster, C. William Childers, Robert L. Ewing, Harold L. Folley, James R. Gosler, Roger L. Hagengruber, Peter S. Hamilton, Preston B. Herrington, Albert Narath, Craig A. Searls, Tommy A. Sellers, Mary J. Stang, Paul A. Stokes, Robert Surran, Thomas P. Wright. Original and 7 copies. c/s: y. Served on 3/27/95 Oral Argument? y (appellant is pro se) Appellant's optional reply brief due 4/13/95 for William H. Payne (mbm) Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure [FRAP] 26 (c) states (c) Additional Time after Service. When a party is required or permitted to act within a prescribed period after service of a paper upon that party, 3 calendar days are added to the prescribed period unless the paper is delivered on the date of service stated in the proof of service. http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#26c While the Tenth Circuit ASSERTS Appellees brief was, in fact, served on 3/27/95 evidence given below points to the brief was served, in fact, on 3/29/95. I allege that Friedman affixed a false date of service to Sandia's brief. I WAS NEVER PROPERLY SERVED. I wrote Wednesday March 29, 1995 Dan Friedman Simons, Cuddy & Friedman Pecos Trail Office Compound 1701 Old Pecos Trail POB 4160 Santa Fe, NM 87502-4160 505-988-4476 505-984-1807 FAX Dear Lawyer Friedman: Today at 14:00 hours I found a green and white about 9x13 inch envelope in our mail box at my home. Mailing label indicated that the envelope came from your firm. CONFIDENTIAL was stamped on the mailing label. I wrote "Received at 14:00 hours on W 3/29/95 with no POSTMARK OR STAMP by W. H. Payne" at the bottom of the envelope. There was no STAMP OR POSTAGE METER LABEL or POSTMARK on the envelope. Therefore, I gave the envelope to US Postal Service supervisor Mel at 14:49 hours today at the Postal Receiving station at 9904 Montgomery, NW in Albuquerque. Mel has a copy of the cover of the envelope with Mel's note written on it. Mel told me the post office was going to return the envelope to your firm for proper mailing. I ask: 1 What did this envelope contain? Please identify the documents precisely. 2 If any Certificates of Service were included in the envelope, then what were the dates affixed to these documents? 3 Who placed this envelope in our mail box? Lawyer Friedman: It appears you missed an important filing date. And are in the process of attempt to correct your failure. But may be using illegitimate methods to conceal your failure. Please respond as soon as possible so that we all may discover what has happened here." ... Lawyer Friedman did not respond to the above letter. But Friedman did mail me Appellees brief many days later in envelope showing TRUE MAILING date. Certificate of service on received Appellees brief did not reflect postmark date. 10th Cir. R. 25.4 in 1995 page 62 reads Papers not accepted for filing. -- The clerk shall not file papers that do not comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and these rules See 10thCir. R. 42.1 But Tenth Circuit clerks Fisher and Hoecker despite my protests and submission of evidence may have stamped FILED on Sandia's IMPROPERLY SERVED Appellee/Respondent's brief according to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Laywer Friedman FALSIFIED THE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. Friedman DID NOT MAIL ME "Served on 3/27/95." d) Proof of Service; Filing. A paper presented for filing shall contain an acknowledgment of service by the person served or proof of service in the form of a statement of the date and manner of service, of the name of the person served, and of the addresses to which the papers were mailed or at which they were delivered, certified by the person who made service. Proof of service may appear on or be affixed to the papers filed. When a brief or appendix is filed by mailing or dispatch in accordance with Rule 25(a)(2)(B), the proof of service shall also state the date and manner by which the document was mailed or dispatched to the clerk. http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#25a Crime apparently committed by Hoecker and Fisher is § 1017. Government seals wrongfully used and instruments wrongfully sealed Whoever fraudulently or wrongfully affixes or impresses the seal of any department or agency of the United States, to or upon any certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper or with knowledge of its fraudulent character, with wrongful or fraudulent intent, uses, buys, procures, sells, or transfers to another any such certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper, to which or upon which said seal has been so fraudulently affixed or impressed, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1017.shtml Despite my protests of judicial misconduct Judges Moore, Barrett, Weis award decision to Sandia 10/6/95 [890055] Order filed by Judges Moore, Barrett, Weis "...All outstanding motions are denied..." (found in Order & Judgment of 10/6/95) [879579-1] Parties served by mail. (pdw) when these judges should not have had Appellees brief before them. Then in an apparently attempt to conceal what happened 10/6/95 [890076] NOTE: THIS ENTIRE CASE IS SEALED. Terminated on the Merits after Submission Without Oral Hearing; Judgment Affirmed; Written, Signed, Unpublished. Moore, authoring judge; Barrett; Weis. [94-2205] (pdw) I WON MY APPEAL, pro se, ON A TECHNICALITY but judges Judges Moore, Barrett, Weis awarded the win to Sandia Labs! Members of Congress, judicial misconduct in this matter has been well-documented. Court records filed with the Tenth Circuit. But CURRENTLY under seal. Lawyers involved in this matter attempt to use the legal strategy of IGNORE and STONEWALL to attempt to deny me justice. Ignoring and stonewalling by lawyers forced Morales and me to seek visibility so lawyers could no longer ignore and stonewall. Lawyer attitude apparently is that they ignore rules of civil procedure or even the law so long as their actions are invisible to public scrutiny. Visibility was achieved by suing the National Security Agency which revealed even more judicial misconduct http://www.jya.com/whp052898.htm. I would like to settle all matters involved with this unfortunate cyrpto-related matter, which includes criminal violations of the Privacy Act. DOE lawyer Steve Dillingham asked me to prepare a settlement offer in 1994. I wrote a settlement letter May 22, 1994 to Dillingham. Nothing happened. June 11, 1998 I made several modifications to my 1994 settlement letter and sent it e-mail to Robert Nordhaus, Chief Counsel, DOE. I ask that you 1 help with settlement of my six-year-old since I won my appeal at the Tenth Circuit, 2 investigate Tenth Circuit case 94-2205 Payne v. Sandia Corporation, et al to bring the guilty to justice. Sincerely william payne 505 292 7037 I am not reading e-mail http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm http://www.apcatalog.com/cgi-bin/AP?ISBN=0125475705&LOCATION=US&FORM=FORM2 http://www-hto.usc.edu/software/seqaln/doc/html/gfsr.3.html Coauthor Lewis in the above is one of my former MS and PhD students in computer science. http://www.friction-free-economy.com/ Monday 6/22/98 1:04 PM Members of Congress Purpose of this e-mail is to give written proof of criminal judicial misconduct by Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals clerks Hoecker, Fisher, and Judges Anderson, Barrett, Logan and request a congressional investigation. After several years, with Payne, of trying to get Tenth Circuit to send docket sheets from my case, citizen John Young http://www.jya.com/index.htm locates docket sheets and posts them Morales Case Dockets 10th USCA June 12, 1998 on Internet at http://www.jya.com/arm061298.htm. Source: Online records Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals via PACER GENERAL DOCKET FOR Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Docket #: 95-2204 Filed: 9/29/95 Nsuit: 3440 Morales v. Sandia National Lab. Appeal from: United States District Court for the District of New Mexico I filed 11/9/95 [898274] Appellant's brief filed by Arthur R. Morales. Original and 2 copies. c/s: y. Served on 11/7/95. Oral argument? pro se. Appellee's brief due 12/11/95 for Sandia National Lab. (pdw) Sandia files its FIRST ATTEMPT at 12/11/95 [905033] Appellee's deficient brief filed by Sandia National Lab.. Appellee's corrected brief due 12/21/95 for Sandia National Lab. additional copies received 12/11/95. (fg) Tenth Circuit court clerk Patrick Fisher writes Wells on December 11, 1995 concerning Sandia's deficient brief [C]orrections, however made, must be accompanied by proof of service upon all other parties to the appeal. ... and issues 12/14/95 [905975] FIRST notice of rules violation for Deborah D. Wells for Appellee Sandia National Lab. (sls) Wells submits 12/21/95 [907974] Appellee's brief filed by Sandia National Lab.. Original and 7 copies. c/s: y. Served on 12/20/95 Oral Argument? n Appellant's optional reply brief due 1/8/96 for Arthur R. Morales (mbm) but DOES NOT serve me with a copy. Wells later admits in 2/1/96 [917660] Response filed by Sandia National Lab. Appellant/Petitioner motion to clarify Original and 3 copies. c/s: y response Null Relief Code (fg) Certificate of Service date 30th day of January, 1996, [h]ad Appellant simply made a phone call to the Tenth Circuit, he could have established that the Defendant-Appellee's corrected brief was indeed filed on a timely basis, ... I protested by filing 1/3/96 [909965] Appellant's motion "for the Court to Grant Appeal" filed by Appellant Arthur R. Morales [95-2204]. Original and 3 copies. c/s: y. (pdw) 1/3/96 [909966] Appellant's motion "for New Trial" filed by Appellant Arthur R. Morales [95-2204]. Original and 3 copies. c/s: y. (pdw) 1/3/96 [909967] Appellant's motion "to Discipline Defendant-Appellee" filed by Appellant Arthur R. Morales [95-2204]. Original and 3 copies. c/s: y. (pdw) because Sandia did not properly serve me in violation of Fisher's December 11, 1995 order. The Tenth Circuit court of appeals should NOT, by its own rules, filed Appellee's brief filed by Sandia National Lab.. Original and 7 copies. c/s: y. Served on 12/20/95 10th Cir. R. 25.4 in 1995 page 62 reads Papers not accepted for filing. -- The clerk shall not file papers that do not comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and these rules See 10thCir. R. 42.1 And is doubtful whether court clerk Fisher had any authority under appellate procedure to permit Wells to correct her deficient brief. Rather Sandia's brief did not comply with with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and should have been summarily rejected for filing. I WON, pro se, my appeal to the Tenth circuit on a technicality but Judges Anderson, Barrett, Logan awarded the win to Sandia Labs. 4/2/96 [932848] Order filed by Judges Anderson, Barrett, Logan denying parties' motions for general relief(found in Order and Judgment of 4/2/96)--"...During the course of this appeal, the parties have filed various motions for dismissal, summary grant, and sanctions. We find no merit to any of these motions, and they are [920851-1] Parties served by mail. (pdw) by accepting and judging on a documents which was not permitted to be before the court by its own rules. Judicial misconduct in my case has been well-documented as it is in Payne's case. Payne and I speculate that similar judicial misconduct may have occurred at the Tenth Circuit. Sandia lawyer Robert J Park wrote me a settlement letter on Feb 18, 1998. I filled in the blanks and made minor handwritten chages and returned it on February 22, 1998. But my offer has not yet been accepted. I ask that you 1 help have my settlement offer accepted, 2 investigate judicial misconduct in case 95-2204 and punish the guilty. Some citizens can only express such frustrations with the US court system with violence. I seek change by legal reform. Sincerely Arthur R Morales 505 345 1381

1 0