- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

M$ coercion -anyone doubt my previous claims of Gate$' immorality
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- from ZDNET > As shocking as this [IE requirement] is, the most > unsettling revelation is the news that Microsoft required > its {OEM } "partners" to report any planned contact with > government officials. If that's not illegal, it should be. It > implies a threat of reprisal if OEMs so much as inquire > about their rights. like I have said again and again: Gate$ has the basic TS trait of "the rules dont apply to me" in spades. lawyers will add their wildest dreams to contracts; Gate$ carried the responsibility to exercise common sense --he did not. his overwhelming drive: "veni, vidi, vici" is all consuming. his temper tantrums are legendary: classic TS. yes, the restriction on planned contacts with the government is illegal: it constitutes "obstruction of justice" -in fact, I would say it is probably the most prima facie case of it I have ever seen. it is a slap in the face to our basic concept of fairness and the rule of law. I vote that the DOJ initiate the criminal phase of the Sherman and Clayton acts. I have always accused Gate$ of having lower morals, and dirtier hands, than Cornelius Vanderbilt or Jay Gould. the argument that dismembering M$ will throw the computer industry into total disarray is bullshit. No, it will permit other operating systems and software to enter the market. the divested software components can be distributed in much the same way the seven Baby Bells were value and AT&T stock was split with each AT&T share being worth so many of each component and the shareholders could pick. Meanwhile, with Gate$, "to heck with Janet Reno" Ballmer, and their lawyers in federal prison where they are prohibited from running a business, the software industry might return to some well needed diversity since Gate$ will not be able to swing his mighty hatchet. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQBVAwUBNFFmzrR8UA6T6u61AQFSxQIAiVGb4cdMplUNZdlDw15jNl8bZdX5Lzz+ 9teI7hbjJbe8WSZqm85EAH0Q9TfWL3k1b5VS4FAAVHtzaRrFzJlrQQ== =X4G/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Office of the Secretary of Defense vs the First Amendment
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:07:23 +0000 From: "Glen L. Roberts" <glr(a)glr.com> To: declan(a)well.com, noah(a)pathfinder.com Subject: Office of the Secretary of Defense vs the First Amendment From: Glen L. Roberts, PO Box 1533, Oil City, PA 16301 (814) 676-2345 re: Office of the Secretary of Defense vs The First Amendment Attn: Seema Singh Dear Senator Arlen Spector: I am in receipt of correspondence from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, dated October 7, 1997. (Copy attached) They appear to be asking me to stop quoting certain parts of the U.S. Congressional Record. Obviously, citizens of the United States have a First Amendment right, if not an obligation, to express their opinions on matters relating to the operation of the Government. The DoD, it would appear, is requesting that I not express my opinions, when such expressions include certain portions of the Congressional Record, or that I "excise" my commentary to help cover up their mis-deads. Does the First Amendment give me the right to express my views, or to express my views only in accordance with the desires of the DoD? I can understand the concern and embarassment the DoD may feel by my highlighting certain portions of the Congressional Record and taking issue with them. However, I would think that for any government accountibility to take place, such commentaries are not only proper, but also a necessity. The First Amendment clearly setsforth my right to take issue with governmental polices and actions. I do not think it is within the proper bounds of the DoD to suggest how I may express myself, or what words might be appropriate or inappropriate to use in such expressions. If I were to read between the lines, I would conclude that the DoD is attempting to place the burden of their improper activities upon my shoulders. That is, if I stop reprinting the Congressional Record; no one will understand the problem and it will go away! Completely disregarding the public nature and purpose of the Congressional Record. For if I cannot freely quote from the Congressional Record, why has the Library of Congress moved to increase public availablity and access to it: "Acting under the directive of the leadership of the 104th Congress to make Federal legislative information freely available to the Internet public, a Library of Congress team brought the THOMAS World Wide Web system online in January 1995, at the inception of the 104th Congress." There are a number of possible ways that the DoD might seek to resolve the underlying problems of which I have brought attention to on my web pages, radio broadcasts and publications. I fail to understand how adjusting my commentary to meet the desires of the DoD will correct a stupid mistake they made years ago, and continued for years. Eliminating the attention will serve only to cover up and avoid any resolution of the problem. I request your assistance in supporting my First Amendment rights. ------------------------- (any typeos in the following are mine) Office of the Secretary of Defense 1950 Defense Pentagon Washington DC 202301-1950 Adminstration & Management Octover 7, 1997 Mr. Glen L. Roberts P.O. Box 1533 Oil City, PA 16301 Dear Mr. Roberts: This Department has taken the position in a wide variety of contexts that disclosure of the social security number constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's personal privacy. Therefore, the Department is as concerned as you are regarding the public availablity of the SSN and strongly believes that the general public should not have access to such numbers. As you have said, teh Department no longer provides the full social security number to Congress because we recognized and correct what was then a problem. Unfortunately, the numbers currently exact in print and at public websites. But this fact does not mean that we should not minimize, when possible, the proliferation of such lists. Although your apparent goal to obtain greater privacy protection for the individual is certainly laudable, publishing consolidated listings on your website perpetrates and exaverbates the very problem you are attemping to address. Put differently, such publications disregards the very privacy interests you are seeking to protect. Though the lists are available elsewhere, you are making it much simpler to find them because the other sites are not always easy to locate. Therefore, consideration should be given to the deletion of the lists, or in the alternative, excision of the SSN, from your webpage. Either action on your part will demonstrate, not only by word, but by deed, a sensitivity that others have ignored, in that, you have elected to pursure an approach where your advocacy requirements have been balanced against the privacy interests of the individual. Sincerely, //s// Aurello Nepa, Jr. Director Defense Privacy Office

2 1

Declan speaks out on NAMBLA and TIME
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~ SECONDS: Is there any activity that should be forbidden? DECLAN: I'm not in the business of making laws like that. I don't know exactly how to define what's underage and what's intimidation. Kids have to be protected and I sympathize with those who want to write a law. I'm just saying you have to control the bureaucracy and be extremely careful about demagoguery. At the moment, there's too much demagogic hysteria for people to be thinking sensibly about it. SECONDS: Does it help the government get further into people's houses? DECLAN: Another pretext for extension of police apparatuses. Another excuse for the government desire to be able to snoop in on any electronic conversation. It's a useful thing to get votes. I would say where force and violence are involved, where mental violence is involved, there's a fine line. What about some thirteen-year-old kid whose parents have beat him up and rejected him and is out on the street looking for love, hungry, taken in by some pederast who treats him nicely, gives him an education, sleeps with him - what are you gonna do? What humanely should be done? How are you going to make the distinction? The cops don't make the distinction. The law doesn't make the distinction. NAMBLA's good for making public discussion on this issue, discussing what should be the right laws. People want to scapegoat the discussion. They're willing to talk about it publicly all the time and bust people but sensible discussion seems to be out of the question. I've been accused of being a child rapist simply because I went on the air and said I was a member of NAMBLA. Ten years ago, I saw in Time Magazine an attack on NAMBLA saying it was a group involved in "the systematic exploitation of the weak and immature by the powerful and disturbed." At first reading, it struck me as a precise characterization of Time's own assault on the American mind. ~~~~~~~~~ OK, so it was really Alan Ginsberg who said the above. I'll try and put the universe back in balance, later, by attributing some of Declan's comments to Ginsberg.

2 1

Re: Saving money
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > At 2:38 PM -0700 10/24/97, harka(a)nycmetro.com wrote: > The "just don't work for them if 'ya don't like it"-argument > will last about 4 weeks...the approximate time a human can > survive without eating. (or a couple of weeks less, if you have > kids) -=> Quoting In:tcmay@got.net to Harka <=- In> By my third year out of college, I had a big enough cushion of In> saved cash and other investments [american dream deleted] While I am glad for your achievements, you have not addressed my point: all this doesn't apply to the larger mass of people. You were fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time...one of the founding-members of a company in an industry, that pays way more than average and thus brought you into the position, that you're in now. Great...more power to you and I encourage everybody to try the same. But that's not applicable to the larger percentage of the population. Besides, it's a supply and demand question. Computer-jobs only pay that much because it's a booming industry right now and there are less people than needed. Fortunate for those who were/are able to ride the wave. But if the available work-force exceeds the demand for it, such jobs wouldn't pay nearly as much as they do right now. Hence, achieving financial independence to the point of freely choosing employers would become much harder again. But this is the reality for MOST people (outside of the elite-industries) already! Especially if they start out with student-loan-debts amounting to several ten thousands of dollars. Add a family/kids to that and you tell me how easy a task it will be to quickly become independently wealthy. (Some people will be able to pull it off somehow, most people won't - - despite their wishes to the contrary. Should they make their best effort? Absolutely! Will everybody succeed? Absolutely not.) The background of this discussion is the free choice of employers (based on their policies). My point is, that for the large mass there is no such thing as a free choice (of employers), not necessarely because they're not willing to improve their financial standing to such a degree (who doesn't want to have more money?), but because they don't have the time, resources and conditions to do so. But even IF you were able to "make yourself more marketable" (as WHGIII eloquently composed)...if ninety percent of businesses in the country use the GAK/CAK-feature of PGP 5.5 how much free choice will then remain for you? > I.e. unless you are the super-duper, three-times > nobel-prize-winner (with lots of money in stocks), who can > AFFORD to choose employers that freely, you will be DAMN GLAD to > have a job AT ALL, regardless of their policies! In> More nonsense. Move out to the Bay Area, if you have any In> talent at all in software or hardware or biotech or Web design In> or multimedia, and you'll find jobs galore. I'll invite you in return to move to Brooklyn, NY to find out for yourself how easy life is for the non-elitists. Or maybe just take a walk around your own town. The truth is, that there are many people outside of Cypherpunks, who get barely through life _despite_ making efforts. They may get enough salary in their 9-5 job to maintain themselves to a degree, but not nearly enough to have the complete freedom, that is the issue here. And to say, "they get what they deserve" (if they don't have the abundance of dollars/freedom) is rather narrowminded and out-of-touch with most people's reality. But these are the people determining if GAK/CAK ever becomes widespread. If companies employing it would face extinction, because nobody would work for them anymore, GAK/CAK wouldn't succeed. However, capitalism doesn't work that way, despite of the few who made capitalism work for them. Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* E-mail: harka(at)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail pref'd) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ ... By the time you can make ends meet, they move the ends. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBNFF8ijltEBIEF0MBAQFvFAf/TtywGVY8r6JKPljBzQjFAUZuDTrQiISZ qxUAMN6PhXz/fvDHqAJAPSnGiUkMf1goEI0NNG7cpZkdIaayz8PI33JzV9g5dypl lrUGb65+qzuMBi4+RhYbwWJQe44NOUzNDaZJdc0q3m6LDhXOrMLUoCt/i0b+KdB+ E68FAPBkOsYAgU8ooi4EeQkgabsEJRx5Hf4VB0Y0r3xcY5DBm7AbIpResU2xg9Xm ySZPsOpRA/PmFS3wOqoSJQIyZeeOx0k2rKVVNGsRYrtsfvVXj8wGegujRACXnGJF wL+7IIwkosOUESs93LWCQ6CwqsefpQBCrKE0mACxP9F03P4rXEXaGA== =rRS/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

3 3

Re: PGP, Inc.--What were they thinking?
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Kent Crispin wrote: >I understand what Lucky meant when he said that PGP had pulled the >greatest hack ever on corporate America. It's so good that you have >to conceal your mirth, for fear of screwing it up... Yes, yes, it's great that the bosses bought the fool's tool, as they ever are doomed to do, unable to escape that the underlings are forever disobedient and disloyal, for right and good reasons: too little pay, as employers are forever rightfully and reasonably paranoid: too little Shut the FU labor. The eternal conflicting interests of the two -- whether gov/cu, he/she, them/us -- is what generates economic enterprise between competitive groups. Each is doomed to fall victim to peddlers of "this will ease your insecurity for sure, trust me," selling to both sides, betraying both sides, bragging to insiders "what clueless jerks, more born every day". The braggarts whistling in the dark at their own terrors. Call them leaders, pols, priests, journalists, scientists, wonks, seers, agony aunts, talking heads, headless tadpoles, all wise asses who are convinced they know what's what when they actually don't know S from S but are mesmerized by their latest foolhardy intellectual conceit, their copyrighted IP IPO for orchestrating a cheating win they don't deserve, doped max on auto-delusionary what were they PGProzacking. Damn, Geiger, was it you snatched my Rx?

1 0

Re: poverty traps (Re: Sa
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Harka <harka(a)nycmetro.com> wrote: > That may indeed work for some people, but the argument of > "self-discipline and sacrifice" usually goes overboard once > people _other than yourself_ are severely affected by that. > "Sorry hun, you can't have a new winter-coat. Mommy has to save > enough money so that she can choose the people she works for. > And no...no christmas this year either". -=> Quoting In:aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk to Harka <=- In> That is indeed a sad financial state to be in. I have trouble In> believing it though. [examples of well-fares deleted] In> So if any kids are being deprived of winter clothes or In> whatever, it's not because their parents don't have enough In> money, it's because their parents are stupid, or selfish. Although my statement was deliberately somewhat exaggerated, it is not that far from reality for quite a few people I know. A real-life example: A single (divorced) mother, 4 kids (3-12 years), working full-time and making in theory $42 000/year. After taxes that comes down to $2000 cash per month. In order for her to be able to work her two youngest kids go to a day-care-center. Wham! $1000 per month (hiring a baby-sitter would amount to even more). Her apartment costs $800/month excluding utilities. That leaves $200 (+ $800 she gets in child-support) per month for _five_ people to live on (clothes, food, utilities, school-books, gas for the car, etc.etc.) One thousand dollars per month for five people!! And that in New York City! She is not entitled to any support such as free school-meals for the kids etc., because she "makes too much money" (_before_ taxes, of course!) What efforts has she made to make "herself more marketable"? She has been working ever since the age of 16, went 8 years to College (paid by herself and paying rent at the same time) and now has a Masters Degree in teaching. What has it brought her? Bill-collectors calling every day! She made a calculation and (confirming your statement) came to the conclusion, that she indeed would have _more_ money by not working at all and simply going on welfare. However, that is not a choice she wants to make. Is she to be called "stupid" and "selfish" because she's poor despite her efforts??? I don't think so. She, btw., is not the only person I know struggeling in this manner from one month into the next, barely being able to even catch up on bills. Neither does she have a free choice of employers. There is only one board of education in the City. Changing for a private school would come with (at least a temporary) pay-cut, that she obviously can't afford. Therefore: Since she isn't the only person I can think of, who is in such a position, the argument formerly known as "If 'ya don't like the company-policy [employing GAK/CAK] just leave and work for somebody else" may now be called: "Ad Acta". Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* E-mail: harka(at)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail pref'd) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ ... Don't you hate it when the pessimists are right all the time? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBNFJRbDltEBIEF0MBAQFAGgf+PoTI/+900uSojxfC/xKFPsEnco5fp+df Etn4uJ23l9ZB7QczEuP96JMo+5vmFXc9Tabh5nMkNCRrA3QaAwxFh2+Boc8RvzAv SBLbjeqnCkvca1EgfOO+eZKv/YcRAZ47JH/w6/g/ggSx3vyM9quFeOqGzljG21au JdjFhtcdvWP2R79ldGnjswjjuT8MntSGwfx+wiKVQtt6YcK81/OKCBFMaZ8o7JTr gzYRzv6y+622Z97rUItmdEwQtDqq8k9wtRfmV1xPloqAHJ65VcJ3HI1LoItTmase oEWPiy6NBIeyN+Nbn+aK/egOalOHev8nX/LqTPxN3TawmxnESldEsg== =u2Q5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

3 2

Re: Saving money
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > At 10:00 PM -0700 10/24/97, harka(a)nycmetro.com wrote: > While I am glad for your achievements, you have not addressed my > point: all this doesn't apply to the larger mass of people. -=> Quoting In:tcmay@got.net to Harka <=- In> As I recall your point, it was that most people are a few weeks away In> from running out of money and hence cannot change jobs readily. I was In> saying that a small amount of self-discipline and sacrifice can quite In> easily translate into having a few _months'_ worth of savings. That may indeed work for some people, but the argument of "self-discipline and sacrifice" usually goes overboard once people _other than yourself_ are severely affected by that. "Sorry hun, you can't have a new winter-coat. Mommy has to save enough money so that she can choose the people she works for. And no...no christmas this year either". In> If they won't make these spending tradeoffs and have not even In> a buffer sufficient to carry them through a month or two or In> three, I say screw them. How about you adopting a person/family of your choice instead and providing them with enough startup-money, so that they can at least make an realistic effort to work towards a position of becoming financially independent themselves? :) In> I won't support restrictions on what a company may do, when In> perfectly legal, Neither do I. In> just because Joe Sixpack spent his paycheck on beer or on his two daughters... In> Or because Rawandala Brown spent her money on crack or supporting her sick mother instead. Your repeating of government-propaganda about the "abuse of the welfare-system" etc. doesn't really cut it as an argument in a discussion about the realism of having total financial independence and the freedom of choices, that comes with it. In> The Mormons teach self-reliance, and savings. So do other In> religions and belief systems. Many of them urge their In> followers to have money put aside for just these kinds of In> situations. While I am not a Mormon or whatever, I do believe in self-reliance myself. But to argue, that everybody already _is_ self-reliant to the degree of being able to freely choose your employer at any time is factually incorrect. And that was the beginning of this discussion. [Grasshopper stuff deleted] In> Don't you mean, in your world view: In> If success is outlawed, only failures will succeed. You don't have to start twisting my signature-file and implying things, that were never written by anybody but your projections. :) In> (I urge you to think about how your criticisms of the free In> market fit this aphorism.) I suggest in return you reconsidering the myth, that a free market means equal opportunities and thus quick self-reliance for everybody. Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* E-mail: harka(at)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail pref'd) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ ... Freedom is not a circumstance in life, it's a State of Mind! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBNFHX2jltEBIEF0MBAQFftAf/Q4bWgn1DJSz8THyW2VwpvfqXu0Df8uol 4+Kqdg8RRsiKeFiUCXG0h/Ab2IZJmYjYvj4ycI5+VqCReCd5YROckTLqih1K4tc4 t0ZnCwGMkwQF5pJ9rizEQnooo2NhLjW1Nj5zMTfHxYeSUtBUNFabd54Szgl485RC CWTRnBDJJCHhdxcvBl2xy+RWbviJ0+DbCVnt/28YN/4cH/YQKQn05dSLVGP4dOUW SZ4VrRqaD+mU/rmFV8oDNfkxSxwx4s4y1yG0WfSBE2XCQea3uzm9oR2ULFwo6vQD iv0VBBM9x7V4Cl9fDBmi36BXDlZDweJtgUDzGolZq4FAcWQRUzxz4A== =uJPQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

2 1

Re: Saving money
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Self-reliance and socialism are diversions confected by capitalism to conceal its evils," some poor bastard finally understood, muttered to nobody and died. Nearly all governments are socialist to some degree in that they provide services (bribes) that other social structures do not; even the vilest must do so to fend off the hordes, rebels and revolutionists, or go broke funding the military, guards, spies and police, as most eventually do like the wealthy being sucked empty by their lawyers, bankers, families and lovers. Indeed, the most fervent proponents of coercive force are those who have the greatest wealth to protect against the folks trying to get it by all possible means. "More cops, more laws, more education in obedience, more loyalty oaths and prenupital 'surely you're joking's." However, even those of great wealth know that mere coercive power is not enough, that you've got to employ religion, education, culture and social pressure to induce acceptance that some have it and some don't, and screw those who don't -- keep the Armalite handy. Borrowing from the Catholic Church, John Calvin tweaked this wealth-hoarding philosophy to a high-definition blind faith in predestination: one is born to have it and too bad about the others -- which relieves those who got it by luck and crime (misnamed self-reliant hard work and careful planning) and can't quite find solace in their own self-deception, can't quite believe their protectors are trustworthy. Calvinist voodoo in updated guises has been for a couple of centuries the fundamentalist faith of the newly wealthy of the industrial (and now electronic) culture, and economic soothsayers know how to keep the grants, lecture fees and book profits coming by peddling all sorts of new versions especially tailored to fit semi-ignorant, fearful souls unsure how to capitalize on their capital, and terrified that it will evaporate just as inexplicably as it rained down on the very spot they happened to be at while all around them folks were dying of drought. None of this applies to the good hearts on this list, who are amazingly generous of their time to contribute wit and wisdom and frank admission that what else can one do except joke about god's folly, endure the drought and pray that the rains come and shit storms don't. As now in southeast Asia. What an amazing RICO op is Wall Street, now World Street, comparable to RICO government, now world gov, composed of the same Bosses and Pols working hand in hand to smirk, smirk blame the other, both knowing that self-reliance and socialism are for clueless fools unable to grasp the wonders of highly organized theft to avoid labor (and taxes) altogether, that coercive-capitalist-gov self-delusion unable to stanch the endlessly increasing cost of defending security threats. Now, I have to confess that stock market plunges lift my spirits wonderfully. Without that I have only the WSJ's thigh-slapping comedies of financial vainglory and ruin. And aoccasional upbeat homilies here about how to get ahead -- none believable of the jokemaster authors. Tim, Adam, Good Humorers.

2 1

Administration to revive vetoed projects [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Administration Will Help Revive Some Vetoed Projects > > Aides put the blame on Defense Department for line-item veto mistakes > > line item > > WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Oct. 24) -- The Clinton Administration is > looking for ways to restore funding for a number of military projects > which, aides say, the president mistakenly vetoed. > > In a letter to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens > (R-Alaska), White House budget chief Franklin Raines blamed the > Defense Department for providing faulty data, which he said led to the > vetoes. > > Clinton, wielding his new line-item veto power that allows the > president to strike individual items from larger spending bills, > vetoed 38 military projects from this year's defense funding bill on > Oct. 14. raines > > Congressional leaders have said despite the administration's mea > culpa, they are not about to try to revive the spending projects for a > veto-override vote during an election year. > > But Raines told Stevens, "We are committed to working with Congress to > restore funding for those projects that were canceled as a result of > inaccuracies in the data provided by the Department of Defense." > > How? Three possibilities have been floated: One would shift surplus > funds from the Defense Department's existing budget; another would > include the money in a supplemental spending bill next year; a third > would insert the items in a so-called "bill of disapproval." > > Stevens told reporters the White House had expressed willingness to > revive 14 projects, though he put the number of mistakenly vetoed > projects at 28. > > "Maybe even the White House is educable," the Alaskan muttered to > reporters after a hearing Thursday on Capitol Hill.

1 0

Bernstein oral argument set for December 8
by Cindy Cohn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has set the specific date and time for the oral argument. It will be on Monday December 8, 1997 on the 1:30 p.m. calendar. It will be held in Courtroom 1. The 9th Circuit is located at 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco. There are 5 cases scheduled for the yet-unknown panel. The first 3 are limited to 10 min oral arg per side. The other two (us included) get 20 min per side. Cases are generally heard in order so as it stands we would be last. Cindy ************************ Cindy A. Cohn McGlashan & Sarrail, P. C. 177 Bovet Road, 6th Floor San Mateo, CA 94402 (415) 341-2585 (tel) (415)341-1395 (fax) Cindy(a)McGlashan.com http://www.McGlashan.com

2 1