What has happened lately in the killing judges world? There was a spate of cases and a couple of jokers got vised, but any recently? I mean in the US, not elsewhere it's acceptable culling. Is Jeff still here hoping for another gold star, is Tim still being bullseyed for "he's gone too far, make him an example." Crypto-assassin CJ's still emitting judicial mock, with filthy, disgusting heavals from Three Rivers, TX. Course, the flung bung wads could be Jeff's plying your honor.
----- Original Message ----- X-Loop: openpgp.net From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
What has happened lately in the killing judges world? There was a spate of cases and a couple of jokers got vised, but any recently?
My theory is that this kind of thing gets covered up whever the govt. can do this. It was a little more than a year ago, but it's about time that I tell the CP group about an incident that occurred the day after (June 3, 1999) I was sentenced at Tacoma Federal Court. I had just "reamed the judge a new asshole" with my commentary on June 2, and a fellow Seatac FDC inmate was taken to court the next day (with the same judge, Franklin Burgess, interestingly enough) to be sentenced for whatever he did (or didn't do, dependng...) (He told me what happened the subsequent day; apparently they were all still in a bad mood because of what I'd said...) During his proceedings, there was apparently some bomb, or bomb threat. (He overheard a couple of US Marshals talking about what was happening; whether those Marshals were, themselves, well-informed is unknown. Everyone else was evacuated from the courtroom, but he was left behind, locked inside. Naturally, he was pissed for obvious reasons. (His public-defender lawyer was Miriam Schwartz, in case anyone wants to hear more about this from a different perspective.) What he heard was that there was an explosion of some kind: Whether this was a real bomb or just some idiot Feds blowing up someone's lunch-bucket with a shotgun shell, he didn't know. Despite careful searching of the two local newspapers, Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (PI), no indication of this incident could be found. Likewise, nobody I talked to ever saw a reference to this incident on any local TV-news programs. I made a mental note to myself to look into this when I had an opportunity. A few weeks ago, I was reminded of this when a nearby (Clark County, Washington) courthouse was bombed (no, it wasn't me! (B<O)). I sent some email to both the Seattle newspapers, and had some rather unsatisfactory communication with some idiot assistant editor at the PI. After a few days of silence (during which time she was probably enthusiastically violating any sort of confidentiality she might have reasonably figured I'd expected from her) she came back with the claim that "there was no bomb." (but at the same time, she said little else, even though she would have expected to be able to say much more if she'd talked to anyone who actually knew enough to tell her that.) Whether this meant that there WAS some sort of bomb-looking object, or a bomb-mistaken object, or a genuine-bomb-threat-but-no-object-found, or otherwise, she didn't say. (I did ask, however.) She also failed to answer nearly every one of my questions of her, including "Did the PI hear of this incident?". (There were presumably at least 100 people in the courthouse or nearby when this incident occurred: one might think that it would be very unlikely if ALL of them didn't call the news media.) Naturally, she had to point out that they were being "good citizens" by NOT reporting"every bomb threat". I should have asked her if she'd ever read the book, "1984," and pointed out that in this book, covering up the truth was not merely being a good citizen, but in fact was a job! She probably wouldn't have seen the irony in the situation. About 10 years ago, I speculated that the news media, far from acting like an independant group of people exposing and publicizing the truth, actually would eventually have developed tendencies to help cover up embarrassing and/or incriminating incidents evidencing anger or dissatisfaction of the public against the government. (Bomb threats, bombs, threats of various kinds, claims of responsibility, etc.) (This would be quite analogous to the "news media" of the old Soviet Union, which was well-known for ignoring embarrassing news.) The purpose of this would be simple: Cover up dissatisfaction, and perhaps you can convince dissatisfied people that THEY' RE the problem, not society as a group. Control the media, and you can indeed cover up dissatisfaction to a degree. Problem is, it's really easy for the "traditional" news media to cover up this stuff. By its very nature, anonymous communications are anonymous, so the decision of some media-type to cover up a mailed-in or called-in bomb threat would never come back and bite the media. Who's going to know about it? Or talk about it? And even if the person delivering the message later claims he did, naturally he will be disbelieved. At the time, though not publicly, I speculated that to try to counteract this, a small counter-media organization might be formed, containing as little as a sole individual.. I figured that it would announce itself as a sounding-board for this kind of thing. It would receive, anonymously, any sort of announcement, statement, threat, promise, warning, etc. It would combine these anonymous snippets, and deliver them (quite openly, in a recorded and documented fashion) to all the various news media organizations that might otherwise want to ignore what was being said. Since this "publicity person" isn't involved in anything he reports, and in fact he doesn't know who's sending the material, he may reasonably be considered innocent of any claim of responsibility, although it is obvious that his actions won't be welcomed in the government or the news media. Naturally, the development of the Internet (Thank you Algore!) has made this sort of thing dramatically easier and more effective. (Interestingly, within the last year I read of some person who is doing at least a vaguely similar function, in a limited way, with the Earth First! people and their activities. I think there was an article in Time or Newsweek on it.) Jim Bell
I mean in the US, not elsewhere it's acceptable culling.
Is Jeff still here hoping for another gold star, is Tim still being bullseyed for "he's gone too far, make him an example."
Crypto-assassin CJ's still emitting judicial mock, with filthy, disgusting heavals from Three Rivers, TX. Course, the flung bung wads could be Jeff's plying your honor.
On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 03:49:52PM -0700, jim bell wrote:
"Did the PI hear of this incident?". (There were presumably at least 100 people in the courthouse or nearby when this incident occurred: one might think that it would be very unlikely if ALL of them didn't call the news media.) Naturally, she had to point out that they were being "good citizens" by NOT reporting"every bomb threat". I should have asked her if
I hate to defend my colleagues, but this is reasonable. I don't know if bomb threats that turn out to be fake are inherently newsworthy. I would probably have made the same decision, given limited resources. Unless there was some evidence that this was a pattern of threats, etc.
At the time, though not publicly, I speculated that to try to counteract this, a small counter-media organization might be formed, containing as little as a sole individual.. I figured that it would announce itself as a sounding-board for this kind of thing. It would receive, anonymously, any sort of announcement, statement, threat, promise, warning, etc. It would combine these anonymous snippets, and deliver them (quite openly, in a recorded and documented fashion) to all the various news media organizations that might otherwise want to ignore what was being said. Since this
What you're describing could well be a competing publication. You'd presumably have greater legal protection that way in any case. I can see it now: "CJ and JB's BombNewsWire" -Declan
----- Original Message ----- From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 03:49:52PM -0700, jim bell wrote:
"Did the PI hear of this incident?". (There were presumably at least 100 people in the courthouse or nearby when this incident occurred: one might think that it would be very unlikely if ALL of them didn't call the news media.) Naturally, she had to point out that they were being "good citizens" by NOT reporting"every bomb threat". I should have asked her if
I hate to defend my colleagues, but this is reasonable. I don't know if bomb threats that turn out to be fake are inherently newsworthy.
I wasn't particularly dinging her for ignoring "some" bomb threats. I mentioned this comment to relay what her (the newspaper's) stated position was. But "some" pretty quickly turns into "all", and -that- turns into "let's help the government cover up embarrassing facts about real bombs." (In place of "bombs," insert "any sort of incident that the government would want to call 'terrorism'." The World Trade Center bomb, as I vaguely recall from some Internet revelations a few years back, was actually bought and paid-for by US-Government money, funnelled through an informant. (Agent provocateur? Very embarrassingly, he taped his conversations not merely with the other bombers, but also the government agents!) I think the public ought to learn this kind of thing, but they won't if the government has anything to say about it. Maybe the reason that bombers (or, terrorists in general) ratchet up the severity of their attacks is to ensure that the news media won't be able to ignore them.
I would probably have made the same decision, given limited resources. Unless there was some evidence that this was a pattern of threats, etc.
At the time, of course, you wouldn't have known that an inmate had been left inside the courtroom while everyone else was evacuated. I emailed the Post-Intelligencer to find out what I still don't know, after over a year: What really happened that day? And who knew what, and when did they know it? The PI assistant editor is unwilling to tell me, nor is she willing to tell me who she contacted after I sent my inquiry to her.
At the time, though not publicly, I speculated that to try to counteract this, a small counter-media organization might be formed, containing as little as a sole individual.. I figured that it would announce itself as a sounding-board for this kind of thing. It would receive, anonymously, any sort of announcement, statement, threat, promise, warning, etc. It would combine these anonymous snippets, and deliver them (quite openly, in a recorded and documented fashion) to all the various news media organizations that might otherwise want to ignore what was being said. Since this
What you're describing could well be a competing publication. You'd presumably have greater legal protection that way in any case.
Yes, the news media legal "terrain" in 2000 is dramatically different than the 1990 situation. The blurring of the line between ordinary citizens and traditional news media ("the Matt Drudge effect"...uh, sorry, the "Declan McCullagh effect" B^) ) has probably made it fairly difficult for the government to "go after" people who expend effort to expose/embarrass the government, even if they aren't associated with a traditional news-media organization. These days, one of the few things that government can do to keep the playing field un-level is to deny un-sympathetic net journalists access to press conferences, etc. 'course, you know more about this than I do! Check out the site, www.slaphillary.com . And read the article that introduces it, at: http://frontpagemag.com/editors_note/en10-17-00.htm An excerpt from it follows: ------------------begin excerpt------------- There is nothing unusual about Hillary being booed in New York. It happens all the time. When Hillary marched in the Saint Patrick's Day parade in March, she ran a 45-block gauntlet of boos and catcalls. She was also booed when she marched in the Salute to Israel parade in June. What was different about last Thursday, though, is that the mass media actually reported the booing. Usually, they pretend it never happened. When Eva Peron walked among her subjects, she often planted fake supporters in the crowds, who would cheer for the cameras. Hillary uses similar tactics. My wife and I watched Hillary march in the Columbus Day parade last week, on Fifth Avenue. There were plenty of booers and catcallers, as usual. But, wherever Hillary walked, a mob of about 50 operatives ran, in tight formation, on either side of the street, brandishing "Hillary" signs and screaming their support for the First Lady. Thus, the photographers and TV crews - if they angled their shots right - could always make it seem as if the First Lady were surrounded by adoring fans. ------------excerpt ends----------- The appeal of the "slap Hillary" website, I think, comes from the same gut level as the usual reaction to my AP system when it's described to people. I can't imagine having been the first to say it, but long ago (Musta been 20 years ago in "internet years") I said "you can't appeal a bullet." (Today, I can't find even a single reference to 'can't appeal a bullet' on Altavista nor Deja.com. Haven't checked the CP archives yet.) No matter how rabid, no Hillary-supporter can possibly "appeal" the website away, or the inestimable joy of giving our own "Hillarita Peron" a big one. "You can't appeal a slap." Jim Bell
I can see it now: "CJ and JB's BombNewsWire"
-Declan
participants (3)
-
Declan McCullagh -
jim bell -
John Young