In <v03007800aea4b053298a@[207.167.93.63]>, on 11/05/96 at 12:53 AM, "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> said: .At 1:14 PM -0800 11/4/96, Ernest Hua wrote: .>I'm looking for 19 other people interested in "Secret Power" (Craig .>Potton Publishers has indicated that there is a discount for 20 or .>more copies). If you are in the San Francisco Bay Area, please .>contact me by phone or E-Mail. .Just wondering...doesn't such a call for a group purchase of such a .dangerous book constitute a RICO (Racketeer-Influenced and Crypto .Organizations Act) violation? .--Tim May I trust your RICO (Racketeer-Influenced and "Crypto" Organizations Act) is tongue in cheek? The original title was "Corrupt" not "Crypto," though I am sure our friendly 'rules for them and rules for us' racketeering influenced corrupt organization for a government could define it whatever it to suit their purpose.... as to the suggestion/question --how would you contstruct the group purchase of a book to involve RICO? "racketeering" is defined as a criminal association whose purpose is to intimidate others and to deny them theor pursuit of the American dream... (over-simplified). maybe they could try "conspiracy" under Title 18 in general, maybe attached to "treason?" -the ACLU would have a field day; and, I, for one, would sign up just to get charged with that in mind --even fully understanding that only in the US can you be convicted of the thought of "comspiring" to perform a criminal action. surprised I am not sent to jail every time I pass a luscious expression of feminity or 'hot potato.' <g> although the book is not published here (probably from pressure applied by the spooks), the book is not _banned_ here which would be rather difficult to get past the first federal judge, regardless of any Jamie Gorelock sniveling claims to national security needs and requirements or any of the usual drivel, I've seen and been there on stretching the meaning of the charge, both more than one; I've seen feds lie on the stand regarding Miranda and the fifth --and get away with it because their credibility is still supreme in the courts the feds still to need some form of charge that is "understandable;" and, some compliance with a tame charge --even if false, or they expose themselves to the revelation of even more information, none of which they want on the table. trying _us_ on the allegations contained in the book would be a bonanza for us with the first evidentiary round! what a feast! --no way will the funny farm open up on that one. Secondly, even if they charged us, they would be on the defense to try and prove we were "treasonous" --and they would be trotting out lots of dirty laundrey for the judge, jury, and press (who probably could not give a shit). any comment, Brian? any comment, Greg? any comment, Unicorn? any comment, Firssel? -- one of the few things we all share: the utter, corrosive contempt for our elected officials. -- Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly, and for the same reason. -- one of the few things we all share: the utter, corrosive contempt for our elected officials. -- Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly, and for the same reason.