At 05:28 PM 8/28/01 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:

The focus of the US intel community is shifting, at the current time, to "domestic terrorism". That makes political speech of the kind which has in past years been entirely normal on this list orders of magnitude more dangerous to the participants than it was at that time. Taking part in this discussion in a style "traditional" for this list could be very dangerous. Remember, one out of every fifty Americans is in jail, and if you think you're in the most radical two percent of the population, there are implications, aren't there?

I'm not involved in the retail pharmaceutical trade like most of those poor political prisoners. I wouldn't worry about discussing drug laws or the retail pharmaceutical trade, however. Do you have any evidence of a greater risk of imprisonment for discussions of the effect of technology in weakening national states? Is Tom Clancy going to spend much time in stir for machine gunning the US Congress at the end of Debt of Honor? I know that there has been an increase in punishments levied on the institutionalized populations of our many local institutions for the mentally challenged, but any parent who turns his children's body and brain over to a bureaucracy for training deserves what they get (though the children/victims do not). And since most of these punishments consist of removing the child from the institution in question, it's hard to see to see them as genuine punishments. They're actually helpful to the poor tykes. There hasn't been a statistically significant increase in imprisonment of adults (or non-institutionalized children) for thought crime. You might have argued the case in '92 and '93 when the Feds were investing various "compounds" of thought criminals around the country but the Fibbies got burned so bad that they snatched their hands back. Note that Weaver, Harris, and the Waco 11 were all acquitted of murder in the killing of federal agents. Real slap in the face to Main Justice.

For Tim: Why are you attempting to provoke public discussion about things that could get people jailed or worse for discussing them? It's interesting to see you post your "sweet spot" message and then call someone *else* an agent provocateur.

What's the "or worse"? The Ninth Circuit where Jeff would put Tim or whoever on trial has been very protective of the First. Note the Nuremberg Files case. That Court of Appeals has the most libertarian Appeals Court Judge (Kozinski) and there is loads circuit precedent for political speech protection. And all of the agitation and possible targeting of this list as well as the Libertarian Party of Washington would give anyone with half a brain yet another defense - selective prosecution. We have quite a bit of evidence of punishment for participating in a public forum. There's 9th circuit precedent for that defense too from back when the Hawaii US attorney prosecuted the Hawaii 4 for census resistance in 1970 after census resistance was advocated on KTRG radio. See US v. Watamull. CJ & JB are partially responsible for their problems. Unlike JB, for example, I'll never volunteer to the commission of a federal felony on the witness stand (mail tampering) that the Feds didn't even know about. There's such a thing as a special kind of stupid. JB plead out in his first case which didn't gain him anything except more trouble. Better not to plead in political cases. And CJ waived a jury. Most 1A defenses work only on appeal so the jury isn't that important but it can help. Both needed good appeal lawyers. Most of the rest of the possible targets will have good lawyers (or be good enough ones). I do think that there has been a bit too much cooperation with the Feds by members of this list. Two members have talked to Fibbies who showed up at their doors. They should have told them to get lost (as one always should). Think about it folks. The more time you spend in the presence of peace officers, the more information you give them for free whether by word, body language, or opportunities for visual inspection of your surroundings. Don't interact. You don't have to. And the several list members who have been subpoenaed could have done a little more to resist. When one receives a subpoena, the first thing you should do is throw it away. You can always wimp out later if you want but if you ignore the initial contact, they may go away. Make them do a little heavy lifting. Then if you are free to move, you should arrange to vacation overseas. If you have a job (reporter) that can be performed by Net and telephone, you should go to Canada where you can continue to work easily. If you can't move, you should at least wait for a second communication of some sort from the government. If you receive a second contact, you should point out that you will be a hostile witness and do nothing but verbally abuse them from the stand. You can prove your facility at this by verbally abusing them over the phone. If you are on the Right Coast and the court venue is on the Left Coast, you should immediately bundle up all your "government issued picture IDs" and burn them so you can't fly. Less easily, you could also try and weight 320 pounds so that carrying you will prove difficult for US Marshals. You might also try to be suffering from a potentially fatal disease so that threats from the Feds can be placed in the proper perspective. [Since, for now, we all *do* suffer from a potentially fatal disease (life), threats from the Feds should already be placed in a proper perspective.] Lastly, if you develop studious habits, you will discover that "prison is no punishment for the literate." Make *them* oppress you! Don't do it to yourself. They can't force you to speak. You have control of your voluntary muscles. Show a little backbone. DCF ---- "I brought up blankets, towels, toilet paper, Kleenex, aspirin, a bottle of rum and the .38" -- What my grandmother Louise Porter Frissell took to the evacuation assembly point at Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Territory of Hawaii, on December 7th 1941.