- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:39 PM 12/24/96 -0500, Brian A. LaMacchia wrote: >At 05:54 PM 12/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>"Man wins $27,000. He will eventually be required to report and pay taxes >>on the amount, but not quite yet. Stupid I/R/S people alert him BEFORE he >>files his taxes. He reports the payment, as is ostensibly legally required. >> He paid the taxes owed. Period." >> >>THEN you said, "we settled the matter." Huh? What, exactly, was there to >>"settle"? > >Why, of course, the fact that the guy attempted to structure the >transaction to evade the reporting requirements in the first place. 31 >U.S.C. 5324(a). Who says? He eventually reported it within the legally-defined time. The evidence of intent to COMPLY with the law is far stronger than the evidence of the opposite. >Structuring (or attempting to structure) a financial >transaction to evade the reporting requirements is a violation of this >subsection, and 31 U.S.C. 5322(a) says that a willful violation is a >five-year felony. Again, he clearly DID NOT "evade the reporting requirement." Brian Davis admitted this. (Whether he ever intended to do this is sheer speculation on the part of anyone else. We'll never know; as Davis pointed out, the IRS screwed up.) Even if the standard of evidence was as low as "preponderance of evidence" (which it, of course, is not in a criminal case) he SHOULD have won. By waiting until the return was filed and the tax was paid, the IRS was allowing him to resolve whatever ambiguity remained. Actually, if there were any justice, he should have been able to sue the bank for reporting him and NOT INFORMING HIM of that fact. (I presume the law requires the bank to report suspicious transactions. I also presume that the law _doesn't_ prohibit the bank from telling the customer that it will have to report that transaction.) The bank, presumably being experts in the matter, recognizes that lay individuals can't be expected to be experts in specialized areas, and should be considered obligated to warn customers away from suspicious-looking transactions. I'm sure the REAL LAWYERS (tm) on this list will be able to cite examples of where experts of all kinds were sued by non-experts for failing to warn them of unexpected dangers that could have been averted had the appropriate advice been given promptly. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?
by Brian A. LaMacchia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:17 PM 12/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >At 09:39 PM 12/24/96 -0500, Brian A. LaMacchia wrote: >>Why, of course, the fact that the guy attempted to structure the >>transaction to evade the reporting requirements in the first place. 31 >>U.S.C. 5324(a). > >Who says? He eventually reported it within the legally-defined time. The >evidence of intent to COMPLY with the law is far stronger than the evidence >of the opposite. Bzzt, wrong answer, thanks for playing. "Reporting" here doesn't mean "report the income to the IRS on your tax return." It refers to the report the bank is required to file by law on every transaction in excess of $10,000. If the guy didn't report the $27K as gambling winnings on his 1040 then he'd be guilty of tax evasion in addition to the structuring charges, but that's an independent issue. Go read 31 U.S.C. 5324 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/) >Again, he clearly DID NOT "evade the reporting requirement." Brian Davis >admitted this. (Whether he ever intended to do this is sheer speculation on >the part of anyone else. We'll never know; as Davis pointed out, the IRS >screwed up.) Even if the standard of evidence was as low as "preponderance >of evidence" (which it, of course, is not in a criminal case) he SHOULD have >won. By waiting until the return was filed and the tax was paid, the IRS >was allowing him to resolve whatever ambiguity remained. Of course he attempted to evade: three checks, deposits the first in bank 1, the second in bank 2, and the third in bank 1 again. Trying to not cause either bank to file the form that says "we just got a deposit in excess of $10K." That's structuring to evade. Welcome to Allenwood. --bal

1 0

Re: clipper plans 4 sale
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:18 PM 12/24/96 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: > Many people will believe it. Its easy to construct the case >that the ITARs, as they apply to things in the public domain, thing >implemented outside the US, things designed outside the US, are just >silly. Its much harder to make that argument about Skipjack, >especially as you can't legally export the chips. When Clipper was first proposed, in April of 1993, as I recall one of the government-types promoting it claimed that it would be exportable "except to terrorist-sponsoring countries like Libya." This made me laugh: It seemed to me that if Clipper codes were kept and available to the US government, you'd expect that they'd WANT Libya to get those phones! In fact, they'd air-drop them in the thousands, right? After all, this would make other countries more dependant on the US for cooperation, and they'd be more pliable as a result, right? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Reflections on the Bernstein ruling
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:01 PM 12/23/96 -0500, Marc Horowitz wrote: >Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> writes: >>> It's also unclear that Judge Patel's ruling is enough to make export of >>> crypto source legal by people/organizations located even in the Northern >>> District of CA. Venue is proper, in an ITAR case, in any jurisdiction which >>> the defense articles have moved through. (18 USC 3237(a); _US v. Durrani_ >>> 659 F.Supp 1177, 1182 (D. Conn, 1987); an easy analogy is to the _US v. >>> Thomas_ "Amateur Action" case, where Tennessee venue was proper for >>> prosecution of California defendants who sent porn into Tennessee.) So it's >>> at least arguable that the feds could simply bring an ITAR prosecution in >>> another district, if exported crypto flowed through that district. (But I >>> don't think they can do so against Dan Bernstein because of "res judicata", >>> a doctrine which says that once two parties have fully litigated an issue, >>> they cannot come back to the same court - or a different one - and ask to >>> relitigate the same issue.) > >It happens to be the case that the Northern District of California >borders on the Pacific Ocean, and includes (at least) two airports >with direct flights to more crypto-friendly jurisdictions to the west. >I do not know if there are any satellite or oceanic cables similarly >situated, but I wouldn't be surprised. In law, there's a concept known as "mens rea," or "guilty mind." (A Real Lawyer (tm) should be able to explain this to CP) Presumably, if the legal system followed its own rules, it would be impossible to have a "guilty mind" about exporting crypto subsequent to the Patel ruling, until such time as that ruling was specifically overturned. After all, the lay public is not expected to be experts here, and if a judge (!) says that crypto export regulations are a violation of the US Constitution, we should be entitled to believe her and to believe that we're entitled to disobey the (unconstitutional) law with a clear conscience. Further, IMO, It shouldn't even matter if contrary legal decisions exist, as long as they are not directly above that court so as to overrule Judge Patel. Our consciences can still be clear: If courts can't, themselves, agree, presumably we aren't obligated to second-guess which one is correct and which one is not. However, a REAL LAWYER would also have to tell you that the system doesn't obey its own rules! Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:12 AM 12/25/96 -0500, Brian A. LaMacchia wrote: >At 07:17 PM 12/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>At 09:39 PM 12/24/96 -0500, Brian A. LaMacchia wrote: >>>Why, of course, the fact that the guy attempted to structure the >>>transaction to evade the reporting requirements in the first place. 31 >>>U.S.C. 5324(a). >> >>Who says? He eventually reported it within the legally-defined time. The >>evidence of intent to COMPLY with the law is far stronger than the evidence >>of the opposite. > >Bzzt, wrong answer, thanks for playing. "Reporting" here doesn't mean >"report the income to the IRS on your tax return." It refers to the report >the bank is required to file by law on every transaction in excess of >$10,000. Bzzt, wrong answer! By definition, if the report was filed as a consequence of the transaction, then the transaction was reported IN FACT and the person didn't evade it! (whether he wanted to evade it is, of course, pure speculation on your part. It is, obviously, questionable whether the government can make a person's mere _desires_ criminal.) Let's suppose, hypothetically, that there is a rule which states "If anybody comes in and does three separate $9,000 transactions, they get reported." In that case, anybody who does those transactions is already aware that doing them does NOT "evade the reporting requirements." Okay, maybe no such explicit rule exists. However, can you prove that anyone really believes that he is "evading reporting requirements"? Having read of this incident, it is quite obvious that the government doesn't obey its own rules and doesn't limit itself to logic and reasonable positions. It is also obvious that banks can't be trusted to follow reliable rules. Once aware of this, how can you show that a person really thought he was getting away with anything? (which is, after all, an essential element of the crime of "structuring", I suppose.) Gotcha! Catch-22 situation. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?
by Brian A. LaMacchia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:35 PM 12/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >At 12:12 AM 12/25/96 -0500, Brian A. LaMacchia wrote: >>Bzzt, wrong answer, thanks for playing. "Reporting" here doesn't mean >>"report the income to the IRS on your tax return." It refers to the report >>the bank is required to file by law on every transaction in excess of >>$10,000. > >Bzzt, wrong answer! By definition, if the report was filed as a consequence of >the transaction, then the transaction was reported IN FACT and the person didn't >evade it! (whether he wanted to evade it is, of course, pure speculation on your >part. It is, obviously, questionable whether the government can make a person's >mere _desires_ criminal.) Please, Jim, *go read the law*. Do it now, before you even think about replying to this message, else you'll say something else stupid and irrelevant. Look, I'll even give you the complete, specific URL for the section of the U.S. Code in question; all you have to do is cut-and-paste it into your favorite Web browser: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/5324.html See in clause (1) where it says, "cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to fail to file a report required under section 5313(a)"? See the words "attempt to cause"? Now go back to EBD's original post. See where he said "Report of Suspicious Transaction"? See the errors in your argument above? Good. Your homework assignment is to go read _Ratzlaf v. US_, 510 U.S. 135, 114 S.Ct. 655, and summarize for the list. --bal

4 4

Re: Legality of requiring credit cards? (fwd)
by gimonca＠skypoint.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 11:14:00 -0500 (EST) > From: Michael Gurski <mgursk1(a)umbc.edu> > Subject: Re: Legality of requiring credit cards? (fwd) > > Yes, and if I'd *ever* written a bad check, it would be a different > story. The weasel there basically said that because I'd made > purchases there in the past few days, they tried to contact my bank on > a Sunday afternoon.... (No, I don't get it either) > > But that still doesn't answer whether or not a credit card can be > requested when paying by check. > They can do whatever the hell they want. Whether it makes any difference to the store's bottom line is another question. What some places will do is call the card number down to the credit offices, who will run an authorization (*not a charge) for one dollar on that card number, figuring that if the Visa/MC system won't even authorize a dollar, they'd better not take the check. Personally, I don't think the process helps much. It's all a part of Corporate Cover-Your-Own-Ass Culture. "Yes, the check bounced, but we followed the procedures in the employee manual!" "We're committed to taking definite steps to fight shrinkage!" People on the list could probably come up with much better ways to authenticate a reputation. Until then, for personal checks, you can call any bank in the U.S., ask for bookkeeping, and ask them if there are funds in the bank to cover the check you're holding. Any bank should give you a yes or no on this. Some banks, like the First Banks here in Minnesota, will do this through their automated telephone banking services, 24 hours. Now, for the rest of you who are calling for the government, of all people, to protect your privacy, please......take that personal check, picture ID and MasterCard, go down to the after-Christmas sales, and buy a clue. --CG

1 0

MerryMerry, and All That
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

{} |||| *(X)* `'*(X)* `~'~*(X)* `'x'~'x'~*(X)* (X)'*x~`x`~`x`~x\ /x'~'*(X)'*x`~`x`~`x`~x\ ((O'^'^'^'^'^M*(X)e'R"r%y^^'^'^'^'^O)) *(((^^^^'~'C\h"r,i%s*(X)'T*m&aS'~'~'^^^^^)))* {((<^^^^^^^^="c*y^P+h'eR*(X)*Pu#n`K"s^^^^^^^^^^^>))} *(((^^^'&"T"i`m$m^Y_&_*(X)*L.D,+T'oo!^^^)))* ((O'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'*(X)*'~'~'~'O)) `'`'*(X)*"~"x"~"x"~"x*(X)*'`` `'`'*(X)*"x"~"x"~"x"~"`` ``*(X)*"x"~"x"~"`` ``*(X)*x"x~"`` `*(X)*x"`` *(X)* *|||* "^" V .. Blanc

1 0

Bubbaonics [Ebonics]
by camcc＠abraxis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

12/25/96 The Atlanta Journal/The Atlanta Constitution "The Vent--The Whine Line," page C2 "It's time for our schools to recognize redneck English. It's called Bubbaonics." with no attribution. Alec

1 0

Iranian clergic attacks Internet as 'poison' to the masses (fwd)
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*** Iranian clergic attacks Internet as 'poison' to the masses A senior Iranian cleric called Friday for restricting Internet access because the global computer network fed "poison" to the masses. Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati said the Internet should be restricted to research and scientific centers and he criticized "unalert and uncalculating" officials who allowed unrestricted access. He said the Internet "poisoned thought, morale and attitude" and "was much worse than food poisoning since 100 doctors put together could not cure such a case in a short time." For the full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=836683-59b -- Vipul Ved Prakash | - Electronic Security & Crypto vipul(a)pobox.com | - Internet & Intranets 91 11 2233328 | - Web Development & PERL 198 Madhuban IP Extension | - Linux & Open Systems Delhi, INDIA 110 092 | - (Networked) Multimedia

2 1