Reese:
You are obviously willing and able to provide the real citation, so what purpose was served by changing all the names and obscuring the real cite, if trickery was not a factor?
No, Reese, I didn't want to expose an agent to Googling.
Are court records public documents, or not? Why wasn't that info sealed if there was a problem with releasing it?
There probably wasn't...agents go on the record. Agents don't get to use remailers and cower behind them.
Talking about yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not the same as doing it, no matter how "is" is defined, talking about bombs and making them is no different. Who was it? Said "I disagree with what you say but support your right to say it" or words to that effect?
A modern version: "I disagree with bomb recipes, but support your right to provide bomb recipes, as long as I am not standing next to you, or associated with you in any way." Things work differently now, see?
No, I don't *see*. There is no reason why they should work differently, the relevant passages of the Constitution have not changed - the activism in the courtrooms is telling though.
I was being sarcastic. Do you think you need probable cause for investigation? ~Aimee
At 06:35 AM 8/17/01, Aimee Farr wrote:
Reese:
Are court records public documents, or not? Why wasn't that info sealed if there was a problem with releasing it?
There probably wasn't...agents go on the record.
Why then, the subterfuge regarding the identities and case citation? Why not be straightforward about it to begin with?
Agents don't get to use remailers and cower behind them.
Cypherpunks don't get the power and sovereign immunity of the reigning governmental infrastructure to cower behind. Show me a proof that no Agent has ever used a remailer, that no Agent shall ever use a remailer.
Do you think you need probable cause for investigation?
I think that probable cause is needed for a valid investigation and where evidence is collected, for that evidence to properly be called valid in a court of law. In court, it is immensely helpful if the defense attorney has at least a half-a-clue and is on the ball, volumes could be said about judges who are interested in strict construction of all the applicable rules and regulations. See the ongoing tribulations and trials of Jim Bell and CJ Parker for some infuriating examples of defense attorneys and judges who do not meet these ideals in the most exemplary fashion. I think that in more than a sufficient number of cases, people will do what they want, regardless of the letter of the law. I think that some people are in better positions to get away with this than others. I think that those who make their living in law enforcement and/or jurisprudence are people, but I may be wrong - some or all of them may be sub-human. Such as that isn't mine to decide, nor is it mine to announce and/or act on - but I can watch and remember. ;) Reese
participants (2)
-
Aimee Farr -
Reese