The ultimate evolution of such nonsense is clearly the current situation in which Jeff "PussyBoy" Gordon's bad Hattie McDaniel impersonation means Jim Bell has committed a crime.
Bad karma, buddy.
Combine this with Judge Jack "Token Negro With Chip on Shoulder" Tanner's attempts to compensate for his genital inferiority by sentencing people before they commit crimes, and it is easy to see why Jim Bell can get 10 years and $10,000 for doing, as they would say on "Weakest Link," absolutely nothing.
There's only one thing worse than calling agents....
The larger question is what are we going to do about it? Somehow "Cypherpunks Write Code" doesn't quite rise to the level of an appropriate response to these pigfuckers.
-- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Your little .sig would make a cute footnote to a judge's opinion. I would say something, but I've been reminded that you're supposed to let convicts dig their own graves. ~Aimee In multiloquio non effugies peccatum.
Aimee Farr could be a nice lady lawyer who just appeared here by serendip or a ... MS shiteater operating under the entrapment rules of IRS investigation manual. Speaking what my nose tells me about Aimee's taunts and ear licks here, and after smelling the shit spread in Tanner's courtroom, she's very dirty. Jeff and Rob and the undercover agents behaved exactly the same and relished displaying the effect of their sucker punches to the jury. Anybody who has been responding to Aimee's emails in a manner that has her name in the To: is fucked, but the same is true if you didn't do that but decided instead to eat her bait and flaunt your superior intelligence. According to the IRS manual she's working with associates here ricocheting bank shots, though the associates may be her other shiteating nyms. Me, I joke about this stuff Aimee acts way too serious about and nothing she's (or he's or they've) posted here under any nym is to be taken seriously outside a Tanner-thighslap jury rig. I figure there is more than one operation underway here, and not all of them know what the others are doing. Christ, the feeding is so bountiful they're probably shiteating each other's. Which is what happens when cybercrimebusters have resources beyond their abilities.
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, John Young wrote:
Tanner's courtroom, she's very dirty. Jeff and Rob and the undercover agents behaved exactly the same and relished displaying the effect of their sucker punches to the jury.
But that's no excuse for JB not sucker punching back. The only reason for running your own defense is so that you can get nastier in cross-ex than a lawyer can. If you can't do it, you're better off having a lawyer do everything. I think JB had the worst of both worlds - a lawyer who he alternately ignored and fought with. I wasn't there but just an impression.
Anybody who has been responding to Aimee's emails in a manner that has her name in the To: is fucked, but the same is true if you didn't do that but decided instead to eat her bait and flaunt your superior intelligence.
I think Jeff used up all the low-hanging fruit on the list. Anyone else he goes after comes expensive. Maybe Choate but would he really be worth it. Anyone with half a brain could put on a stronger defense than the two previous victims. We either have the money or the emotional resources to corral a defense. CJ & JB didn't really even try. For example, neither got real lawyers.
I figure there is more than one operation underway here, and not all of them know what the others are doing. Christ, the feeding is so bountiful they're probably shiteating each other's. Which is what happens when cybercrimebusters have resources beyond their abilities.
They need an overt act. Mere chat won't be enough. DCF ---- Do under others as they would do unto themselves. -- The First Rule of MetaLaw. The problem with the Golden Rule is that tastes may differ.
DF wrote:
They need an overt act. Mere chat won't be enough.
True, to a point. What constitutes an act appears to be going through a dramatic redefinition in cybercrime and allegedly terrorist-related actions. An overt act is not the same for everyone; authorities commit acts (crimes) that the rest of us cannot. And according to the IRS investigation manual it is fair game: to encourage such blurred-line-crossing actions, even taking part in them to vet the promoter; to lie and deceive to get the actions underway; to lie in court to conceal how it was done and who promoted the actions. In the light that another reported has been subpoenaed for notes it worth pondering if, as in the case of Bell and CJ, journalists played a role in promoting line-crossing behavior, not by doing the job they are known to do, but by redefinition of the blurred line between reporting and provoking. Neither Bell nor CJ would have been sent to prison without the complicity of the media, witting or unwitting, and in my opinion, witting moreso. Same goes for this list, which is for me, a member of the media, and no doubt a member of other conclaves yet to be revealed in court and to be sure the hypermedia -- that is the media in which there is a very blurred line (maybe none at all) between the authorities and the traditional media. Look, this swipe is not about Declan and the guy at Bell's trial. That is far too simple. What it is about is not taking for granted avowals of innocence of trusted third parties no matter what cloak they wear, for those TTP cloaks are now clearly being used to entrap gullible actors. And any of the TTPs who say this is paranoid have got a problem of credibility derived primarily from the overly-concerted effort to protect their own privilege even as they shop their subjects as mere news, not quite getting the full story right due to a blinding reliance on voices (grammar, syntax, coherency, narrative) of authority which sound just like the authorities -- ducks quacking like ducks. To not blindly tar everyone with this, I concede that those who have overtly proven they are trustworthy and continue to do so overtly, that is in public under fire, deserve a chance on trust on short-terms. Talk about deserving trust from any previleged position is just authoritarian talk. And citing how many of your fellows have been thrown in jail or suffered for their role aint worth shit unless you are one of them. Then your talk aint all quack.
How do federal officials fit into the more recent "true threat" analysis? See 18 U.S.C. Sects 115; United States v. Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d 1262 (9th Cir. 1990). Obviously, I'm missing something. ~Aimee As for my mysterious disappearances -- I went to law school. Before that, I was in a convent. Before that, GCPP (Girl-Child Protection Program).
On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 03:52 PM, John Young wrote:
Aimee Farr could be a nice lady lawyer who just appeared here by serendip or a ... MS shiteater operating under the entrapment rules of IRS investigation manual.
Do a search on her name in Google. Essentially no signs of her on the Net until _early 2001_. She appears on several libertarian-oriented lists, including an Extropians list, PGP Users, and a Cypherpunks list, asking leading questions about possible actions. Prior to early 2001, little that I can find. (Maybe she changed her name, maybe she didn't even have her "pobox.com" account, or maybe she only got active when she attached herself to so many crypto and libertarian groups...which would be really strange, given her expressed antipathy to the goals. Not a very good agent provacateur!) And this in Waco, a few miles from where the Bush team has been setting up at the Crawford ranch. (Waco is where most of the agents actually live, there being no real apartment buildings in Crawford or Prairie Chapel!) She drops hints about the "prime rib" she's now getting "down the street" from all the SS agents in town. She gets active in provoking PGP Users, Extropians, and Cypherpunks just as the Bush boys are moving into Waco and Crawfod. Coincidence? She posts comments here designed, she apparently thinks, to "out" us.
Speaking what my nose tells me about Aimee's taunts and ear licks here, and after smelling the shit spread in Tanner's courtroom, she's very dirty. Jeff and Rob and the undercover agents behaved exactly the same and relished displaying the effect of their sucker punches to the jury.
My strong hunch is that she's either tied-in directly to the SS staff in Waco, is assigned to the area by the FBI, or is is doing her own independent entrapment so as to present us to them the way a cat presents a mouse to its master. Aimee suddenly gets involved in "pro-liberty" mailing lists in Jan-March 2001, despite being obviously anti-liberty. Aimee apparently has a "sole proprietor" offices in Waco, just where the SS has set up camp, and only 8-10 miles from the Bush ranch. Aimee now thinks that I, Tim, have "committed suicide." Fed-lovers in Waco certainly ought to understand the phenomenon. So, Aimee, low-paid GS-14, or even lower-paid GS-12? (Jeff, Agent Farr is way too stupid even to work for the FBI!) --Tim May
On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 10:10 PM, Aimee Farr wrote:
Aimee now thinks that I, Tim, have "committed suicide."
Nope.
Sen gene sarho`s musun?! = Are you drunk again?
A strange question from one who rambles incoherently and talks about "going out to talk to the snails." Doing more searches, I find you also asking leading (and ignorant, as fits the prosecutorial model) questions on the Freehaven list. Again, in 2001. Why your sudden involvement in early 2001 in all the lists being tarred by the government as havens of anarchist and terrorist thought? Where was your interest in Netly things prior to the Bell arrest in late 2000? There seem to be no entries for you prior to late 2000. Are you in contact with SS members in Waco and Crawford? Are you feeding them tidbits from our list? Or are they just the "prime rib" you joked about getting now that Bushies are in town? (Assuming you were already in town when they arrived. Did you arrive _with_ them? I could talk about what searches I'm doing of "Aimee E. Farr," but I understand how the Feds consider this kind of research to be "interstate stalking," so I won't. Suffice it to see that I find surprisingly little history of you. Less history, in fact, that the prosecuting attorney in the Brian West case just turned up. If you have a history prior to late 2000, it's essentially nonexistent in readily-available sources. Time to hit the DMV and hospital files, I guess.) --Tim May
Aimee now thinks that I, Tim, have "committed suicide."
Nope.
Sen gene sarho`s musun?! = Are you drunk again?
A strange question from one who rambles incoherently and talks about "going out to talk to the snails."
Doing more searches, I find you also asking leading (and ignorant, as fits the prosecutorial model) questions on the Freehaven list. Again, in 2001.
Why your sudden involvement in early 2001 in all the lists being tarred by the government as havens of anarchist and terrorist thought?
Where was your interest in Netly things prior to the Bell arrest in late 2000? There seem to be no entries for you prior to late 2000.
Are you in contact with SS members in Waco and Crawford? Are you feeding them tidbits from our list? Or are they just the "prime rib" you joked about getting now that Bushies are in town?
(Assuming you were already in town when they arrived. Did you arrive _with_ them? I could talk about what searches I'm doing of "Aimee E. Farr," but I understand how the Feds consider this kind of research to be "interstate stalking," so I won't. Suffice it to see that I find surprisingly little history of you. Less history, in fact, that the prosecuting attorney in the Brian West case just turned up. If you have a history prior to late 2000, it's essentially nonexistent in readily-available sources. Time to hit the DMV and hospital files, I guess.)
--Tim May
My, you're playful tonight. You already know there is nothing there. And, if I was anything like that, you would handle it a little differently. I get your message, Tim. ~Aimee
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 01:30:42PM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
I would say something, but I've been reminded that you're supposed to let convicts dig their own graves.
Come, Aimee, I've said before that you are educable. You can do more than post repetitive look-out-or-you'll-spend-time-in-prison replies, right? I understand you may want to distance yourself from some folks, but there may be other ways to do it. (Like not replying in the first place.) -Declan
On Wednesday, August 29, 2001, at 08:17 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 01:30:42PM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
I would say something, but I've been reminded that you're supposed to let convicts dig their own graves.
Come, Aimee, I've said before that you are educable. You can do more than post repetitive look-out-or-you'll-spend-time-in-prison replies, right? I understand you may want to distance yourself from some folks, but there may be other ways to do it. (Like not replying in the first place.)
There seems to be a feeding frenzy of these "you're going to get in trouble!" posts. Several weeks ago, it was the "spoliation" thread, with Aimee assuring us that using certain technologies must be illegal. She could say why, in real terms (real as opposed to "maybe in the future"), but she implied we would be on thin ice. Oddly, Black Unicorn added a blizzard of cites he claimed showed that using some technologies, even long in advance of a any charges being filed or orders issued, would be "taunting Happy Fun Court." Apparently the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments are made moot when Mr. Happy Fun Court decides he is "not amused" by people using encryption. Then we had Sandy Sandfort weighing in with his comment that some Cypherpunks are going to be in deep trouble with The Man. I think Sandy even forecast my death in a shootout. About the same time, Aimee chided _us_ for allowing the "help me make bombz, d00dz!" posts, showing no sense of who is likely posting these formulaic attempts at entrapment. When we told her we can't stop the AOLers and WebTV script kiddies and cops, she said that merely talking about explosives is taunting happy fun court. (One wonders what Aimee thinks should happen to the publishers of "Encyclopedia Britannica" for helping so my pyrotechnics hobbyists and freedom fighters. Not to mention CNN, for reporting in detail how to safely manufacture Oklahoma City-grade Astrolite.) And when we refused to stop the bombz posts to Aimee's satisfaction, she established her own "Bomb Law Reporter." Well, she'd _better_ be a Fed or a Fed helper, as she's connected herself and her newsletter out of Crawford and Waco to the construction of bombs. Ka-Boom! Next, we started seeing sissies like Ray Dillinger, er, "Bear," some sort of polyamoristic wuss-ninny from northern California, urging us to change the subject, to talk about the nurturing and children-friendly aspects of crypto. Fuck that. This is not some list for leftie greens and wuss-ninnies. Choate finds an ally in "Nomen Nescio," who bemoans the libertarian focus. And Aimee is still rambling, talking to her snails, apologizing, blithering, and hinting that she is so worried about out our dangerous ideas that she may have to talk to her SS buddies (her "prime rib") about the threat we pose to the New World Order. (Frankly, I think the odds are better than 50-50 that Aimee's sudden appearance on a bunch of liberty-oriented lists in late 2000, is not just because of her sudden interest in PGP, liberty, data havens, and Cypherpunks topics. Her clueless provocations on several of these lists match the M.O. of past list infiltrators. Whether she's actually a Fed, or is just borrowing the name of one of the Farrs from Waco or Caddo Mills (Hi, Gene Farr!) is not so important. She/he has ZERO, none, nada, nil Web presence prior to her/his sudden activism and encitement on several mailing lists in late 2000, around the time of the actions against Bell and the election. Maybe she's just a cut-out. Maybe she's just free-lancing for the Feds. Maybe she's just what she pretends to be, a twit who says she "represents the Establishment" when she's not talking to her snails. Sure is suspicious, though.) So, bottom line, we seem to have a new faction of about half a dozen singing variants of these songs: "But you can't say things like that!" "Say what you want, it's your funeral." "Do not taunt Happy Fun Court!" "I'm gonna _tell_!" "Tim May is a scary guy with a lot of guns who says he's going to defend his rights. I think you should raid his house and that of all of the other CACLs!" "There are limits to free speech." "Dig your own grave. My friends in Crawford are on to you." "Blacknet is an interesting idea, but only if it used by Steele and his CIA friends. Can you assure us it will not be used except for good uses, such as those by the CIA and DEA?" "I said I was gonna tell. I just did." "This list used to be about peace and brotherhood and community and bliss. Unless Saint Eric returns to save the list, I'm, like, _so_ outta here!" "Do not taunt Happy Fun Court!" --Tim May
The really funny thing about this is that if you search through for archives I'd be willing to bet you'd get a hundred hits or so for almost exactly the quote below.
"Tim May is a scary guy with a lot of guns who says he's going to defend his rights.
I've been on and off the list at various times (mostly off because the volume of this list eventually buries me in electrons) since about '95 or '96. Every once in a while this kind of statement is made. Hasn't happened yet. I've actually enjoying lurking for the past few days as it's been entertaining reading. FWIW, I'm with Tim on Aimee. She's a fed or closely enough related that she might as well be. -- TANSTAAFL, amp@pobox.com http://www.zeugma.nu/ Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
Sandy, Aimee, Unicorn, Dillinger, Choate, Nomen Nescio, what about me? Am I not worthy of this rant?
On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 12:18 AM, Dr. Evil wrote:
Sandy, Aimee, Unicorn, Dillinger, Choate, Nomen Nescio, what about me? Am I not worthy of this rant?
You've left no impression on me. And I expect you are just another of the anonymous or pseudonymous ranters, maybe the same one recently using "Nomen Nescio" or "A Melon." Dismissible, in other words. --Tim May
You've left no impression on me. And I expect you are just another of the anonymous or pseudonymous ranters, maybe the same one recently using "Nomen Nescio" or "A Melon."
I wonder what Senor Escobar thinks of all this. Eh Senor? We haven't heard your street-wise opinions from the great beyond in a while. As for me an Nomen Nescio, and the mysterious A Melon, you found us out! We're a gang of one or more people who do or do not know eachother or others.
Dismissible, in other words.
At least I know where I stand! Perhaps this whole thing is just one person talking to himself, with Tim listening in!
At 08:56 PM 8/29/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
"Blacknet is an interesting idea, but only if it used by Steele and his CIA friends. Can you assure us it will not be used except for good uses, such as those by the CIA and DEA?"
"We develop the tecnology. The policy and how you implement them is not my province." ---Jonathon Philips, mgr DARPA Human ID at a Distance Program Tech Review Sept 01 p 63 "Big Brother Logs On" ......... Additional case studies are needed, however, to determine which traits of chemical and biological terrorists might help identify them because charisma, paranoia, and grandiosity are alo found to varying degreees among, for example, leaders of political parties, large corporations, and academic depts. --John T Finn, _Science_ v 289 1 sept 2000
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:27:43AM -0700, David Honig wrote: | "We develop the tecnology. The policy and how you implement them | is not my province." ---Jonathon Philips, | mgr DARPA Human ID at a Distance Program | Tech Review Sept 01 p 63 "Big Brother Logs On" Its a good thing DARPA doesn't believe in professional responsibility. "As an ACM member I will.. Articulate social responsibilities of members of an organizational unit and encourage full acceptance of those responsibilities." (http://www.acm.org/constitution/code.html) -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume
Heck, I was at Burning Man and just got back. Tim wrote:
Then we had Sandy Sandfort weighing in with his comment that some Cypherpunks are going to be in deep trouble with The Man. I think Sandy even forecast my death in a shootout.
Well, I was dead-bang right-on about Jim Bell, wasn't I? Perhaps Tim is confusing advocacy with prediction. I don't advocate the shooting of Tim May, but I think there is a substantial chance (10-20%?), that it will happen. I wouldn't want to risk those odds, but TMMV. S a n d y
At 23:17 8/29/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 01:30:42PM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
I would say something, but I've been reminded that you're supposed to let convicts dig their own graves.
Come, Aimee, I've said before that you are educable. You can do more than post repetitive look-out-or-you'll-spend-time-in-prison replies, right? I understand you may want to distance yourself from some folks, but there may be other ways to do it. (Like not replying in the first place.)
I'd like her to reply with an honest answer regarding who (or what) it was that reminded her of this little tidbit, and of the other things she has been "reminded of" in the last day or two. Figure the odds. Reese
participants (11)
-
Adam Shostack -
Aimee Farr -
amp -
David Honig -
Declan McCullagh -
Dr. Evil -
Duncan Frissell -
John Young -
Reese -
Sandy Sandfort -
Tim May