Re: denial of service and government rights
Mail Delivery Subsystem wrote:
----- The following addresses had delivery problems ----- <Tired.Fighter@dhp.com> (unrecoverable error) 550 <Tired.Fighter@dhp.com>... User unknown
----- Original message follows ----- Tired.Fighter@dhp.com wrote:
On 30 Nov 96 at 13:10, Black Unicorn wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 1996, Greg Broiles wrote:
I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be true for a computer. Fed.Rul.Crim.Pro. 41(b)(1) allows the seizure (but seizure is not forfeiture) of "property that constitutes evidence of the commission of a criminal offense".
[snip]
Please forgive my naivete, but are there no legal weapons available to the 'victims' in such cases? I'm passingly familiar with the Operation Sundevil fiasco -- i.e., with the outcome re the principal 'charges'. I'm appalled, however, at the apparent lack of remedies for return of such seized property. Are individuals who find themselves in such a predicament simply at the government's mercy (there's an oxymoron for ya)??
Just in case someone replies saying "It's not all that bad", or "It can't happen here", etc., you should know this:
The United States government has not been responsive to the people for a long time, but what's become evident in recent years is that they're also no longer responsive to basic law and order.
They do respond to extreme pressure, as was applied in the Weaver, Waco, and other similar cases, but, as a general rule, they do whatever they want all the way to the top of the Justice dept. with impunity.
Example: George Bush's old pal at the Wash. DC P.R. firm hires the niece(?) of a Kuwaiti official to testify in front of Congress in full view of the American people on television, that the Iraquis were throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait, thereby securing the necessary votes in Congress to prosecute the Gulf War.
When it was discovered (after the "war") that the Incubator Baby Scandal was a lie, nobody was prosecuted. Further, in blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution, Bush and Schwartzkopf were knighted by Queen Elizabeth II of England.
There are also numerous examples of the Justice dept. being caught red- handed forging documents to frame people for whom they had no evidence or insufficient evidence to prosecute, and what happens in those cases? Nothing.
On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
Just in case someone replies saying "It's not all that bad", or "It can't happen here", etc., you should know this:
The United States government has not been responsive to the people for a long time, but what's become evident in recent years is that they're also no longer responsive to basic law and order.
They do respond to extreme pressure, as was applied in the Weaver, Waco, and other similar cases, but, as a general rule, they do whatever they want all the way to the top of the Justice dept. with impunity.
Example: George Bush's old pal at the Wash. DC P.R. firm hires the niece(?) of a Kuwaiti official to testify in front of Congress in full view of the American people on television, that the Iraquis were throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait, thereby securing the necessary votes in Congress to prosecute the Gulf War.
At that time the country was already at war and if you read the war powers act and look at the dates, you'll find that he probably could have prosecuted it without congress. 60 minutes did a nice piece on this, BTW, and even they admitted that the wool might have been pulled over the eyes of the Bush Staff.
When it was discovered (after the "war") that the Incubator Baby Scandal was a lie, nobody was prosecuted.
Prosecuted for what?
Further, in blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution, Bush and Schwartzkopf were knighted by Queen Elizabeth II of England.
Careful. The knighthoods in question (Knight's Cross of the Victorian Order if I recall) do not infringe on foreign decorations restrictions when they are granted in an honorary context, as both were - again if my recall is correct. Several American citizens have been inducted into foreign orders of merit and some have been inducted into badge and even sash orders. One noteable was even inducted into the Order of the Bath (extra points for the name of said citizen).
There are also numerous examples of the Justice dept. being caught red- handed forging documents to frame people for whom they had no evidence or insufficient evidence to prosecute, and what happens in those cases? Nothing.
Examples...? -- Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern Vote Monarchist Switzerland
Black Unicorn wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
Just in case someone replies saying "It's not all that bad", or "It can't happen here", etc., you should know this: The United States government has not been responsive to the people for a long time, but what's become evident in recent years is that they're also no longer responsive to basic law and order. They do respond to extreme pressure, as was applied in the Weaver, Waco, and other similar cases, but, as a general rule, they do whatever they want all the way to the top of the Justice dept. with impunity. Example: George Bush's old pal at the Wash. DC P.R. firm hires the niece(?) of a Kuwaiti official to testify in front of Congress in full view of the American people on television, that the Iraquis were throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait, thereby securing the necessary votes in Congress to prosecute the Gulf War.
At that time the country was already at war and if you read the war powers act and look at the dates, you'll find that he probably could have prosecuted it without congress.
Fraud is fraud. It's illegal under *some* statute, I'm sure.
60 minutes did a nice piece on this, BTW, and even they admitted that the wool might have been pulled over the eyes of the Bush Staff.
When it was discovered (after the "war") that the Incubator Baby Scandal was a lie, nobody was prosecuted.
Prosecuted for what?
Fraud. See above.
Further, in blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution, Bush and Schwartzkopf were knighted by Queen Elizabeth II of England.
Careful. The knighthoods in question (Knight's Cross of the Victorian Order if I recall) do not infringe on foreign decorations restrictions when they are granted in an honorary context, as both were - again if my recall is correct. Several American citizens have been inducted into foreign orders of merit and some have been inducted into badge and even sash orders. One noteable was even inducted into the Order of the Bath (extra points for the name of said citizen).
According to the Constitution, "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatsoever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." I would point out that the "any kind whatsoever" clause is clear enough, and as to whether Congress approved Bush et al for these honors, well, you tell me.
There are also numerous examples of the Justice dept. being caught red- handed forging documents to frame people for whom they had no evidence or insufficient evidence to prosecute, and what happens in those cases? Nothing.
Examples...?
Demjanjuk. Israel (a country where the Justice department seems to have some ethics) was so embarrassed about this that they released him, even though there was considerable pressure to keep him under various charges. One could also look at the Weaver and Waco cases for false charges. It's worthy of note that juries rejected the U.S. Justice dept's murder charges in these cases. The original charges in the Weaver case even included the baby, as I recall.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
Careful. The knighthoods in question (Knight's Cross of the Victorian Order if I recall) do not infringe on foreign decorations restrictions when they are granted in an honorary context, as both were - again if my recall is correct. Several American citizens have been inducted into foreign orders of merit and some have been inducted into badge and even sash orders. One noteable was even inducted into the Order of the Bath (extra points for the name of said citizen).
According to the Constitution, "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatsoever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."
I would point out that the "any kind whatsoever" clause is clear enough, and as to whether Congress approved Bush et al for these honors, well, you tell me.
Yes, as a matter of fact, they did. --Deviant PGP KeyID = E820F015 Fingerprint = 3D6AAB628E3DFAA9 F7D35736ABC56D39 It's difficult to see the picture when you are inside the frame. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMqHsfjCdEh3oIPAVAQG1Jgf+K+GKyJwi6CjEYrIkksgZF0D2p3wbuNMl NfI/T/mKBex11B6AC+XH0z7wGaSA7gAwEK7qZfJAWM/vfI/ryI8REKX7RpHpoeRf yEAKemy+afej6xcMzrXEra1OB7htpukji4+T5x32ewiibCZvpx4yS1H5KW3/qcfx 1/oinXv59TRj0jmUuQyMHb4B99dp4ytDPzeqcudwCVmTyItQw72SMJYNKO4uykcO wf2u09u47W23FIZOt5biD219KvczFu96cIcbnc7STQNGnG03ZUBxjx5PimtS7Uqd VWvk8ljdkGvalr6ruK5zKf7izbJe3ZVsPh2n3+FDnewTu2OF8paDsg== =IMyt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
Black Unicorn wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
Example: George Bush's old pal at the Wash. DC P.R. firm hires the niece(?) of a Kuwaiti official to testify in front of Congress in full view of the American people on television, that the Iraquis were throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait, thereby securing the necessary votes in Congress to prosecute the Gulf War.
At that time the country was already at war and if you read the war powers act and look at the dates, you'll find that he probably could have prosecuted it without congress.
Fraud is fraud. It's illegal under *some* statute, I'm sure.
Point to it.
60 minutes did a nice piece on this, BTW, and even they admitted that the wool might have been pulled over the eyes of the Bush Staff.
When it was discovered (after the "war") that the Incubator Baby Scandal was a lie, nobody was prosecuted.
Prosecuted for what?
Fraud. See above.
Give me a cite. Fraud is an excellent answer because it is a meaningless answer. Fraud is traditionally used to prosecutue those not-quite-a-crime cases because the definition essentially comes down to : "That guy did something we don't like."
Further, in blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution, Bush and Schwartzkopf were knighted by Queen Elizabeth II of England.
Careful. The knighthoods in question (Knight's Cross of the Victorian Order if I recall) do not infringe on foreign decorations restrictions when they are granted in an honorary context, as both were - again if my recall is correct. Several American citizens have been inducted into foreign orders of merit and some have been inducted into badge and even sash orders. One noteable was even inducted into the Order of the Bath (extra points for the name of said citizen).
According to the Constitution, "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatsoever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."
Honorary Knighthoods simply do not fall into this catagory. There are three or four cases on this point which I will dig up if enough people complain. In addition, I believe congressional approval was granted regardless for Schwartzkopf. Note that unlike your previous assertion, there is no rule regulating these awards for the day to day citizen. Playing loosey goosey with the facts seems to be a habit with you. -- Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern Vote Monarchist Switzerland
Black Unicorn wrote:
On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
Black Unicorn wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
Example: George Bush's old pal at the Wash. DC P.R. firm hires the niece(?) of a Kuwaiti official to testify in front of Congress in full view of the American people on television, that the Iraquis were throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait, thereby securing the necessary votes in Congress to prosecute the Gulf War.
[snippo]
Fraud is an excellent answer because it is a meaningless answer. Fraud is traditionally used to prosecutue those not-quite-a-crime cases because the definition essentially comes down to : "That guy did something we don't like."
[much drivel snipped] So what you're saying is I (or we) can testify in front of Congress on essentially any topic, telling a blatant lie (that we know is false, and which they will subsequently prove is false), and totally get away with it. You and I can do that, is that what you're saying? If that is true, then my original contention that things are far worse than the person I originally responded to was imagining, stands as correct. Things are bad indeed.
On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
Black Unicorn wrote:
On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
Black Unicorn wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
Example: George Bush's old pal at the Wash. DC P.R. firm hires the niece(?) of a Kuwaiti official to testify in front of Congress in full view of the American people on television, that the Iraquis were throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait, thereby securing the necessary votes in Congress to prosecute the Gulf War.
[snippo]
Fraud is an excellent answer because it is a meaningless answer. Fraud is traditionally used to prosecutue those not-quite-a-crime cases because the definition essentially comes down to : "That guy did something we don't like."
[much drivel snipped]
So what you're saying is I (or we) can testify in front of Congress on essentially any topic, telling a blatant lie (that we know is false, and which they will subsequently prove is false), and totally get away with it. You and I can do that, is that what you're saying?
What you're talking about is contempt of congress. This is not "fraud." The penality imposed would be purjury. I don't believe that during that discussion, the witness was sworn, but I could be mistaken. In any event, purjury is purjury, but it hardly rises to the level of conspiracy your post originally indicated.
If that is true, then my original contention that things are far worse than the person I originally responded to was imagining, stands as correct. Things are bad indeed.
"I had no idea what I was talking about, but as luck would have it I was right anyhow." Here, have a bozo button. -- Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern Vote Monarchist Switzerland
Black Unicorn wrote:
On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
Black Unicorn wrote:
On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
Black Unicorn wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
> Example: George Bush's old pal at the Wash. DC P.R. firm hires the > niece(?) of a Kuwaiti official to testify in front of Congress in full > view of the American people on television, that the Iraquis were throwing > babies out of incubators in Kuwait, thereby securing the necessary votes > in Congress to prosecute the Gulf War.
[snippo]
What you're talking about is contempt of congress. This is not "fraud." "I had no idea what I was talking about, but as luck would have it I was right anyhow." Here, have a bozo button.
I was right, and you just can't stand it, can you? I think the shoe fits you, Mr. Clown, so wear it in "good health".
On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
[snippo]
What you're talking about is contempt of congress. This is not "fraud." "I had no idea what I was talking about, but as luck would have it I was right anyhow." Here, have a bozo button.
I was right, and you just can't stand it, can you? I think the shoe fits you, Mr. Clown, so wear it in "good health".
Actually, you were not right. Your claim was that this somehow constituted a conspiracy. I was merely pointing out that even if your version of events was correct (which I hardly conceed), you still had no clue what you were talking about when you began and just happened to "fall" into the answer when your legs were knocked out from under you. -- Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern Vote Monarchist Switzerland
Black Unicorn wrote:
On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
What you're talking about is contempt of congress. This is not "fraud." "I had no idea what I was talking about, but as luck would have it I was right anyhow." Here, have a bozo button.
I was right, and you just can't stand it, can you? I think the shoe fits you, Mr. Clown, so wear it in "good health".
Actually, you were not right. Your claim was that this somehow constituted a conspiracy. I was merely pointing out that even if your version of events was correct (which I hardly conceed), you still had no clue what you were talking about when you began and just happened to "fall" into the answer when your legs were knocked out from under you.
Normally, when someone doesn't know when to give up (you and Sandy S. are two who come to mind), I just drop it. But I thought I'd let you know what I think of your "Argumentum ad Nauseam". Education is *not* a substitute for intelligence and common sense, by the way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
Normally, when someone doesn't know when to give up (you and Sandy S. are two who come to mind), I just drop it...
Wrong AGAIN. I gave up on Dale a long time ago. That's why *I* dropped it. S a n d y "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" --Robert Heinlein ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
Normally, when someone doesn't know when to give up (you and Sandy S. are two who come to mind), I just drop it...
Wrong AGAIN. I gave up on Dale a long time ago. That's why *I* dropped it.
I think the above reply proves my point. Thank you Sandy.
Mr Thorn wrote:
Black Unicorn wrote:
Fraud is an excellent answer because it is a meaningless answer. Fraud is traditionally used to prosecutue those not-quite-a-crime cases because the definition essentially comes down to : "That guy did something we don't like." [much drivel snipped] So what you're saying is I (or we) can testify in front of Congress on essentially any topic, telling a blatant lie (that we know is false, and which they will subsequently prove is false), and totally get away with it. You and I can do that, is that what you're saying?
(I am going to spell this wrong) Perjury. Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@smoke.suba.com
participants (5)
-
Black Unicorn -
Dale Thorn -
Sandy Sandfort -
snow -
The Deviant