Re: This is a listed crime?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 21 Sep 1998, Jim Choate wrote:
dont want to take the time to look up the 18 USC reference, but providing deliberately false information to _any_ federal agent is a felony-- that includes the IRS. if nothing else, such as telling a federal agent to fuck-off, they will charge you with obstruction of justice.
The trick is to tell them you are using your Constitutional right to refuse to answer under the 5th. At that point they can arrest you, and you get protection via a lawyer and the other processes, or they can go away. If after this responce they continue to ask you question they are in fact harassing you and you can press charges for that.
agreed, in theory. but how do you protect yourself when two or more take the stand and swear under oath that you said: "......" or, even: "I dont know nuthin' 'bout it" --which has already been interpreted to a lie it can be proved to a material witness, etc. dealing with the Feds is very similiar to the pecking order of traffic which was suggest to me once in Zuerich: trolleys lorries buses natives presume the man with a badge and a gun is a native. the burden of proof is on you that an agent of our honest, democratically elected government is harassing you. I have seen clear evidence of wiretapping presented, the judge called two gestapos to the stand, and asked them point blank: "did you wiretap [authorized or unauthoized], or were you aware of a wiretap; or did you receive reliable or unreliable information which might have been only obtainable by wiretap or bugging?" and watch both agents straight face lie --one going so far as to say: "no, your Honor, that would be against the law. in the same vein of evidence: why do "officers of the law" carry an extra Saturday Night Special? --in case they drop someone, they can justify their assassination on the basis the deceased was armed and dangerous; or, why does a wanted poster for a meek bean counter who disappeared after touching his employer say: "presume armed and dangerous"? --covers LEOs if they drop the miscreant on sight. the intent of the laws should be evident to everyone. the reality of the laws is the rules of evidence are heavily loaded in favour of the armed and dangerous officers sworn to uphold the law --as they see fit. a little old lady who only walks to the store and to church can be busted for something --be creative. the U.S. legal system has been distorted to the point it could easily be considered the enforcement arm of a totalitarian state. I do consider we have had a valid government since 08 Mar 1933 when FDR, 4 days after his inaugeration hoodwinked Congress into make 'us' the enemy in the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, validating the executive order, and declaring a national emergency. all three actions still stand -the national emergency continues. the American theory is wonderful; the American experience not always so wonderful. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be. Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNgaRlj7vNMDa3ztrEQJZqQCgrmq55Z0oX7grZURPfY8G8qWyU5IAnjvw ZdQyAZK10TYHumCKvTgjZxXo =HJaz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
At 11:11 PM -0700 9/22/98, Bill Stewart wrote:
Yeah. The times I've known the facts in cop-vs-citizen cases, the cops have often been lying; I have to assume that they're often lying in cases when I don't know the facts as well. Of course, getting somebody with that kind of attitude about cops onto a jury is somewhat unlikely, but occasionally you'll find neutrals.
I last served on a jury in 1973, 25 years ago, no doubt before many readers of Cypherpunks were born. And I've only received a single _possible_ summons since, in the 25 years since that one jury appearance. Yet some of the apolitical numbskulls I know about have served on several juries in the same time. The Poisson, as expected, or something more human? Jury nullifying minds want to know. --Tim May (This space left blank pending determ. of acceptability to the gov't.) ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.
At 9:12 PM -0500 9/23/98, James A. Donald wrote:
To rig a jury by excluding undesirables such as Tim May would be far too laborious. To rig a jury it would be necessary to
No, no, On the contrary, far too easy. There are certain people who are NEVER called to jury duty, people convicted of felonies & etc. simply put the name of an undesirable on this list, don't release it as a _list_ of "criminals", and no one will complain. After all, who complains about _not_ being called? Then, as you screen jurors who have recieved summons, you simply add the most extreme to the list. Others aren't a problem because they show up, and are dismissed. It's hard to do all at once, but they have all the time in the world.
include only desirables, thus the pool from which the jury is selected would be vastly smaller than the official pool, and simple statistics would show this up.
If anyone were to look. Security thru obscurity works until someone looks at it. If no one thinks to look tho... -- petro@playboy.com----for work related issues. I don't speak for Playboy. petro@bounty.org-----for everthing else. They wouldn't like that. They REALLY Economic speech IS political speech. wouldn't like that.
At 10:01 PM -0500 9/24/98, James A. Donald wrote:
-- At 9:12 PM -0500 9/23/98, James A. Donald wrote:
To rig a jury by excluding undesirables such as Tim May would be far too laborious. To rig a jury it would be necessary to
At 09:52 AM 9/24/98 -0500, Petro wrote:
No, no, On the contrary, far too easy.
There are certain people who are NEVER called to jury duty, people convicted of felonies & etc. simply put the name of an undesirable on this list,
The number of identifiable undesirables is too small to guarantee the desired trial outcome. To ensure a desired outcome it would be necessary to screen out a very large number of potential undesirables. It would be much easier to screen in a small number of desirables.
At first yes, but over time the list could/would be grown. Also, the list of non-criminal undersirables is _only_ those people who would WANT to serve on the jury, but are too smart/savy/stubborn to pant at the feet of the lawyers. -- petro@playboy.com----for work related issues. I don't speak for Playboy. petro@bounty.org-----for everthing else. They wouldn't like that. They REALLY Economic speech IS political speech. wouldn't like that.
Petro wrote:
There are certain people who are NEVER called to jury duty, people convicted of felonies & etc. simply put the name of an undesirable on this list, don't release it as a _list_ of "criminals", and no one will complain. After all, who complains about _not_ being called?
Why the FUCK not, it is supposed to be a jurry of your PEERS. If you've already been convicted of a felony, a fellow felon is your peer. :^) -- =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Sunder |Prying open my 3rd eye. So good to see |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com|you once again. I thought you were |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|my eye and there we were.... |..... ======================= http://www.sundernet.com ==========================
participants (4)
-
attila -
Petro -
Sunder -
Tim May