January 2014 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Day of action against mass surveillance (Feb 11)
by Gregory Foster 11 Jan '14

11 Jan '14

The Day We Fight Back (Feb 11): https://thedaywefightback.org/ gf -- Gregory Foster || gfoster(a)entersection.org @gregoryfoster <> http://entersection.com/

1 0

MPAA joined W3C
by rysiek 11 Jan '14

11 Jan '14

Well, that was a long time coming... https://twitter.com/w3c/status/420548145102061568 /yes, they announced on the shitter, too! -- Pozdr rysiek

2 1

Re: Your errors about me in your book.
by Jim Bell 11 Jan '14

11 Jan '14

Dear Mr. Greenberg, Forbes Magazine You've been mighty silent, not sending me a single email since the one (November 18, 2013) which is quoted below. Apart from correcting your egregious error, claiming that I had fired "all" of my attorneys (when in fact I hadn't been successful at firing even a single one!), I also quote below my accusations against government employees in regard to phony, fake, forged 'appeal' case 99-30210, as well as my more recent allegations (albeit of a much older event) concerning the government sneakily commandeering the address 7302 Corregidor, in order to spy on me. The average 'journalist', at least ones that actually consider themselves to be real journalists, would be very interested in this kind of material. But you are not even interested enough to ask simple follow-up questions. Why is that? I think I know the answer: You consider yourself, now, aligned with precisely the people who committed these crimes against me during the period of 1995 through 2013. You yourself admitted in an article to having contacted the government: Alone that would not necessarily be a problem, but I think you realized that if you did any effort to help expose the government guys, they would be hostile to you. That's why you haven't investigated, and that's why nearly two months later you haven't even emailed to me,, despite the fact that I previously cc'd this material to you. Perhaps you are terrified that some day soon, you will yourself be the center of a scandal, "What did Andy Greenberg know, and when did he know it, and why didn't he investigate further?". Jim Bell ---- Forwarded Message ----- From: Jim Bell <jamesdbell8(a)yahoo.com> To: brian carroll <electromagnetize(a)gmail.com>; Andrew Greenberg <agreenberg(a)forbes.com>; "cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org" <cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org> Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2014 3:09 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to screw you One clue would come from my suspicion that agents of the Federal government, in March 1995, lured away the former resident of 7302 Corregidor (see http://www.redfin.com/WA/Vancouver/7302-Corregidor-Rd-98664/home/14565030 ), the house immediately to the east of mine, and bought that house. (In the picture provided, my house at 7214 Corregidor is just to the left of the house shown.) The prior resident was a local school (high school?) science teacher, and he was hired at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Richland Washington, a Federal government laboratory akin to Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, etc. http://www.pnl.gov/ The purpose of this was to be able to acquire that house, and use it as a spying location against me. (The names ostensibly buying the house were Daniel J. and Dori J. Saban, and they ran a remodeling operation named "Sundown Development Construction Corporation". http://www.sundowndevelopmentconstruction.com/ ) Note that the date the house was sold is shown as March 10, 1995. (This is odd, because school teachers' lives are oriented around the 'school year', which in most locations in America go from about September 1 to about June 1. They sign contracts with the school to work for that year, and are bound to do so. While I don't recall when the prior, lured occupant left, based on the sale date it appears that he sold that house months before the end of his school year. For a school teacher, this would have been highly unusual.) The sale price is shown as $180,000, which I think was rather high for that time. (But not unexpected if the government wanted to lure him away quickly. Presumably he got a large raise, as well.) They immediately began an extensive remodeling and enlargement operation on that house, including adding a second floor. As I recall, this remodel took nearly a year; seemingly the house was unoccupied during that time. Further, during a long period very little work was actually being done, as I recall. (This remodeling would have dramatically increased the value of that house; the sale price in 1995 of $180,000 cannot be directly compared with the current value of the much-larger and more-up-to-date house as it exists today.) While I don't remember precisely the date I published the first part of my AP essay, I believe that it was no more than a few weeks prior to March 10, 1995, on the 'Digitaliberty' discussion area. http://www.skepticfiles.org/hacker/cud6105.htm (Hence my reference to Digitaliberty in the essay; it wasn't until many weeks later that I'd heard of the 'Cypherpunks' list.) My recollection that the person who initiated 'Digitaliberty', Bill Frezza, was interested in the use of technology for the development of 'liberty', although the first part of my AP essay apparently exceeded his tolerance for radicalism. At some point somebody transported Part 1 of the AP essay to Cypherpunks, and informed me of the existence of CP; I acquired Internet access and joined the Cypherpunks list. The acquisition and operation of nearby government spy locations was/is certainly not new. Consider the case of Robert Hanssen, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen While this Wikipedia article does not mention it, I read contemporaneously various news reports (2001) that said the government set up a spy location near Hanssen's house. How far away that location was, those reports did not say. Presumably, this was a standard tactic, and non-controversial. (At least in the case of actual criminality being suspected and investigated.) The difference, in my case, was that not only did they not suspect me of any crime, they knew that I was innocent of any crime. It is obvious, therefore, that they engaged in this activity not because of any crime (which, had it existed, would have made me a 'criminal') but because of my writing and publication of Part 1 of my Assassination Politics essay. (Which made me 'an enemy', 'a dissident', an opponent of not merely the Federal government, but all governments everywhere.) In other words, the government engaged in activities more appropriate for the former Soviet Union, and seemingly not for America. One question that should be asked, is: "What what the government did, acquiring that house at surveilling me from it, legal?" They would presumably say, "yes". But why wasn't that "stalking", within the meaning of the criminal statute? After all, in November 21, 2000 I was accused of "Interstate Stalking", simply for going around, looking at various locations, not confronting (nor even seeing) anyone. I was investigating things, because I knew that something was (and had been) happening. Was I less entitled to do what I did, than what the government was to do what it did? An inmate/informant named Ryan Thomas Lund (his recent activity: http://www.localblotter.com/news/oregon/man-detained-on-multiple-counts/834… ) was instructed to attack me, which he did on November 25, 1997, because I was beginning to resist the plea agreement that I had been offered, and initially accepted. Don't think that I didn't already suspect the house at 7302 Corregidor during that time. In fact, I informed my (corrupt) attorney Peter Avenia http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/98101-wa-peter-avenia-20216.html of some of my suspicions. (But, of course, I didn't know at that time Avenia was corrupt.) Sometime about December 1, 1997, Avenia visited me at FDC Seatac jail and I told him of Lund's attack. His answer? "I don't know anything about.....that") (Avenia was also Lund's attorney.) And in about July 1998, after I was re-arrested, ostensibly for a 'supervised release violation', the prosecutor Robb London (who is currently the direction of communication at Harvard Law School http://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?orig=SEO_SN&firstName=Robb&lastName=Londo… ) claimed that I 'said that the government was spying on him' [Jim Bell]. Which, of course, was true: I DID suspect, and say, that the government was spying on me! Problem is, London was using this bare assertion to justify me being sent to the Federal Medical Center at Springfield, Missouri, for a mental evaluation (!). Another problem was, London didn't say I was _wrong_ when I said (or suspected) that. (Without at least an allegation that I was wrong, what justification is it to claim that I asserted that the government was spying on me?!? Is merely saying that I believed the government was spying on me enough to justify sending me to a mental evaluation? Would an American's "suspecting" that all his telephone metadata and email was being copied by the NSA, prior to Snowden's allegations, constitute a justification to send that 'comrade' for a mental evaluation in Siberia...er...Springfield?) And worse, I was not allowed to challenge the (implicit) allegation of falsity in my assertion that the government had been spying on me. However, I used the situation (a hearing) to extract a promise (only partly kept) from Avenia that he would investigate my allegations. Many months later, perhaps in February 1999, Avenia send investigator Sharon Callas to Vancouver. Mysteriously, Callas was said to have 'disappeared' (or perhaps 'resigned') later. I never saw the results of her investigation. Later, in about April 1999, attorney Avenia resigned, but NOT at my request. I suspected then, and still suspect today, that his resignation was triggered by something that Sharon Callas discovered during that investigation: Perhaps she confirmed enough of my allegations that Avenia knew that I was correct. http://www.shmoo.com/mail/cypherpunks/jun00/msg00154.shtml So, what had been going on? Presumably, the interest in me (including local spying) was NOT based on allegations of crime, or even suspected future crime, in March 1995. In other words, no government law enforcement agency would have been legally entitled to spy on me. Presumably, the spying that did occur was, itself, illegal: And, had it become exposed (which it should have been if I had not been assaulted by Ryan Thomas Lund on November 25, 1997), the Federal government would have suffered an enormous hit of bad publicity. This corruption must have been at an extremely high level: The forgery of fake appeal case 99-30210, initiated secretly and kept from me for 10 months, with numerous forged documents filed (at least two ostensibly being from me, but they were also forged: You can see them on PACER: www.pacer.gov 9th circuit court. One was docketed about November 10, 1999 and the other was docketed about March 4, 2000: Both dates by my recollection). That would have taken the cooperation of some very powerful people in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, possibly including a few judges. Further, every document filed in that case, from June 1999 through April 2000, was (illegally) not delivered to me when I was at FDC Seatac (until September 3, 1999) and when I was at FCI Phoenix from September 10, 1999 to my release on April 13, 2000. Indeed, there were at least two pieces of certified mail described in the docket for case 99-30210 that were mailed to my then-correct address at FCI Phoenix, which didn't get to me, presumably they were stolen by BOP staff at FCI Phoenix. (Not to mention my allegation that this entire docket was RE-forged once they learned that I had requested an appeal that I hadn't known was already in progress.) Doesn't this begin to sound like the classic "government conspiracy" that people who don't like to talk about "government conspiracies" argue don't happen. (Except rarely, say the Watergate incident in 1972). One of the reasons that I look (way) down on a few of the doofuses around here (CP list) who don't seem to 'like' me is that they apparently take that position without taking the trouble to read my 2003 lawsuit (02-1052; Portland Federal Court) and learning what I allege the government and its minions did. It will be interesting to see if any of them step up, apologize, and say, "Sorry, Mr. Bell, we didn't know..." Jim Bell ========================================================== To: Andy Greenberg, Forbes I had hoped for a quicker response to my emails to you, and by that I don't mean merely my request for you to file a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) filing with the National Archives, specifically the San Bruno facility near San Francisco. The way I see it, you used what looked (and still looks) like a false and contrived set of excuses ('Bell fired practically every court-appointed lawyer ever assigned to him', and 'Bell had filed fifty-one lawsuits against the government while in prison', and 'little wonder Bell had botched his appeals', to paraphrase your writing) in order to justify not looking into my very serious set of accusations. Well, those excuses won't wash anymore. And just a few days ago, you said that your boss wouldn't be interested in you writing a story about my numerous accusations against the Federal government and its personnel! How believable is that? You wrote and published that article about 'Sanjuro', and I suspect within just a few hours it seems like every other reporter in the world followed that story! (To exaggerate only a little.) Right now, your most recent story portrayed the Federal government as being the victims, those being offended against, the 'good guys'. But I know that's not the case. What happens when the public finds out that they: 1. Had a thug snitch, Ryan Thomas Lund, assault me on November 25, 1997, in order to extort a 'guilty' plea from me? 2. Forged a phony 'appeal', 99-30210, during the period June 1999-April 2000? 3. And, moreover, RE-forged it in May 2000? 4. Inflict a series of corrupt attorneys on me, the very same set of attorneys you falsely claimed I had 'fired'. 5. Victimized me by yet more false charges November 2000. And that's just a start. Can you say with a straight face that the public won't be interested in this pile of corruption, given the extensive and virtually instantaneous publicity already given to 'Sanjuro', and indirectly to my AP essay? (Not only by you, but practically everyone else, it seems.) Don't even try to suggest that your boss won't 'allow' it: If he's smart he will DEMAND it from you, or he will assign someone else who doesn't have a conflict of interest. Yes, I said it: A conflict of interest. You seriously mishandled your contact with me, and moreover for personal reasons: You were writing a book. Having written so misleadingly and negligently, when you learned about 'Sanjuro' no doubt you hesitated to cover the full, actual truth about what the government has done. That will only _not_ reflect badly on Forbes if you either fix your own problems promptly, or you get replaced so that an unconflicted person takes up covering the story. Since you're now well-aware that the events of my case were spectacular, and were so long before 'Sanjuro' showed up, your failure to cover the story at those points (2011, 2012; much of 2013) is incriminating. Jim Bell ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Jim Bell <jamesdbell8(a)yahoo.com> To: Andrew Greenberg <agreenberg(a)forbes.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:52 PM Subject: Fw: Your errors about me in your book. I want to add a comment about what you could, and SHOULD, do now. I have explained that there was a massive forgery in appeal case 99-30210. I have said that I believe that occurred in early May 2000. While I do not know any details about the computer that was (or is, today) used for the docketing system for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, we can presume that this computer was backed-up regularly, probably daily, and occasionally those backups were sent to a safe location. I think that safe location was the "Federal Records Center at San Bruno California". (This is a location of the "National Archives".) http://www.archives.gov/frc/san-francisco/ I think you ought display your extreme apology by you and your lawyer writing a 'freedom of information act' request (FOIA) to such an organization, and demand that they obtain and provide to you (and copy to me) copies of the backups for the docketing computer, including case 99-30210, done at approximately the following dates: March 1, 2000, April 1, 2000, May 1, 2000, June 1, 2000. As I am sure you will be able to imagine, these sequential backups will show the existence of that case, and its status, at various times. If, at any point, they 'faked' the appeal, manipulating the record, any backups made subsequent to that manipulation will reflect those changes, while the backups made prior to that manipulation will reflect the earlier status of the appeal. Please note that the pre-forgery status of appeal 99-30210 WAS NOT 'correct': In fact, it itself was a forged 'appeal', but it was whatever these government crooks wanted to fake up until their RE-forgery of appeal 99-30210. They had to RE-forge it because, after my inquiry demanding an appeal (which I didn't know they were already purporting to give me) they felt it necessary to further manipulate the record, and they proceeded to do so. You can do this FOIA request in much less than a day, and file it by email to avoid further unnecessary delay. Your attorney (for Forbes) should know how to do so. Please note that the Feds will try to make phony arguments to dissuade you: One of them will probably be that they 'don't know how' to find the records in question in a 'box' of records provided to them by the Ninth Circuit Court. That excuse will be a dishonest deflection from the truth, however: The truth is that the possessor of the records (in this case, the National Archives) has an OBLIGATION to do whatever it takes to find and identify the requested information in the material given to them by the generator of the records, the Ninth Circuit Court. http://search.archives.gov/query.html?qt=computer+backups&submit=GO&col=1ar… http://www.archives.gov/oig/pdf/2010/management-letter-oi-10-03.pdf http://www.archives.gov/oig/pdf/2010/semiannual-congress-10-2010.pdf I also anticipate that they will claim that 'court records' need not be provided pursuant to a FOIA request. Such a statement will also be false: The truth is that FOIA is addressed to any record in the possession of the Administrative branch of the Federal government. The "National Archives" is part of the Administrative branch, NOT the judicial branch. Since these records are possessed by the Administrative branch, the facility (the National Archives) is obliged to do anything necessary to find and to disclose these records. http://search.archives.gov/query.html?qt=foia&col=1arch&rq=0&qs=&qc=1arch&q… Please respond to me on this matter within a day. Please file the FOIA request, by email, by the end of the business day this Friday, November 22. 2013. Jim Bell ________________________________ From: "Greenberg, Andrew" <AGreenberg(a)forbes.com> To: Jim Bell <jamesdbell8(a)yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 9:53 PM Subject: Re: Your errors about me in your book. Jim, I appreciate all the evidence you’ve presented that those two sentences of my book were in error. I think it's an exaggeration to say that I "misrepresented virtually every fact, implication, and nuance" related to you when in fact the vast majority of what I wrote about you in my book had nothing to do with your legal case and instead focused on your Assassination Politics essay. It does seem, however, that I have made mistakes based on my reading of your legal docket with Forbes’ lawyer, describing some of your legal actions as lawsuits and confusing the resignation of a number of your lawyers or your attempts to fire them with your actually firing them. The suggestion that you had “botched” the appeal was a subjective statement that described Forbes’ lawyer’s assessment of your records and explaining her reluctance to assist you. But for the other errors, I sincerely apologize, and I’ll talk to my publisher to see about having these details corrected in future editions, as I've said earlier. I’m afraid I can’t promise to write anything about your case for Forbes, as you request, as it doesn’t fall into my beat as a journalist (privacy/security/cryptography) and almost certainly wouldn’t be a story my editors would greenlight. I’m not sure what else I can offer, but I wish you all the best in pursuing your legal investigation. Andy On Nov 18, 2013, at 5:56 PM, Jim Bell wrote: To: Andy Greenberg of Forbes Magazine, author of "This Machine Kills Secrets". Keep in mind that most of what I describe here will be in my 2003 lawsuit, 02-1052. <http:///> cryptome.org/jdb-v-usa-106.htm<http://cryptome.org/jdb-v-usa-106.htm> <http:///> I should point out that you don't seem to be commenting about my now-numerous emails to you about these attorneys. What's the problem? Are you AFRAID to comment? I think it's unfair for you to wait until I have disclosed all this material, before you comment. I really think I have a right to learn WHY you claimed that I had tried to fire 'every' attorney I'd had. Where did you hear this? You certainly never tried to verify this claim with me! I would have told you the truth; I would have directed you to lawsuit 02-1052, which already contained the truth. Robert Leen: (You might initially be pleased to hear that Leen was the first attorney I'd actually TRIED to 'fire'. But don't get your hopes up! I was entirely unsuccessful at that attempt.!) My next attorney was assigned about November 21, 2000. I knew 'the fix was in' because I had done NOTHING illegal. I didn't know about the forged, fake, fraudulent appeal case (99-30210), at least the portion of which was prior to May 2000 But I had very publicly announced that I had major, major suspicions about government government corruption, especially Ryan Thomas Lund's November 25, 1997 assault on me (ordered by government employees). And, I knew that the government had placed a tracking device on my parents' car (probably both of them) in April-June 1998. Also, I knew that the Feds had illegally searched my house on my arrest in June 1998. (I had been removed from my house; the house was empty of 'cops'. They had no authority to continue to search that house, yet they did so. Robert Leen refused to try to obtain any 'discovery' shortly after my arrest about November 20, 2000. Recognizing that Leen was trying to sabotage my legal case, I wrote a letter to the Judge (Tanner) in about December 8, 2000, complaining that Leen was trying to sabotage my case. I was astonished (at least in part) that the Judge refused to have Leen fired. I kept asking for Leen to be fired throughout January, February, March, and beyond in 2001. No (good) answer by the Judge. I began learning the law in mid-December 2000. Starting about late February 2001, I began to write various legal motions, in order to document my complete unwillingness to accept Leen's 'representation'. (If you just look at the docket entries for case 00-5731, you may not be able to easily identify which motions were written by me, and which w To show your lawyer how corrupt the Judge (Tanner) and Leen, and the prosecutor (Robb London) were (case 00-5731), during the last week of March 2001, I filed a 'notice of interlocutory appeal'. Your lawyer presumably understands that if a 'notice of appeal' arrives at court, of an appealable issue, that divests the jurisdiction of that court to proceed with any trial. Wanna know what happened? The judge PROCEEDED with a 'trial' as if nothing had happened. I filed a SECOND notice of interlocutory appeal a few weeks before the 'sentencing', and again that filing was completely ignored. Robert Leen was NEVER 'fired'. In fact, in May 2010 (after being arrested for an ostensible probation violation.) Leen actually continued to (pretend to) 'represent me'. Even until today, I presume, he is ostensibly still 'representing' me. At least, on the paperwork he will be listed as 'representing' me. I should point out, also, that it was about this time (early in Leen's malicious 'representation' of me) that I first heard the wacky comment (by the prosecutor Robb London) of his resistance to having Leen replaced. London said something LIKE "Bell fires all his attorneys". By now, Mr. Greenberg, you are well aware that this isn't true. You really need to find Robb London, and ask him if he ever said something like "Bell fires all his attorneys". Perhaps London would defend himself by claiming that he looked into the court record, noticed that at various times the name of my lawyer had changed, and he decided this 'must have' meant that I succeeded (and, therefore, certainly tried) in replacing these attorneys. Annemarie Levins I guess I'm getting tired of re-hashing what you could, and SHOULD, have read in my lawsuit, 02-1052, filed July 14, 2003. Levins was assigned shortly after my ostensible 'conviction' in September 2001. (The reason, as I vaguely recall, was that Robert Leen had stated, "I don't do appeals". I responded by saying to Leen, in what was only about 25% intended as a joke, "You don't do appeals. You merely make them necessary.") Over the next 4-5 months I wrote Levins numerous letters, containing easily 100 pages of single-spaced text, listing HUNDREDS of very arguable appeal issues. Levins, to my recollection, NEVER responded to even a single one of my letters! An increasing sense of dread resulted. I felt it was quite obvious that Levins was planning to further victimize me, in precisely the same way Avenia, Mandel, and Leen had done. (Remember, I did not then yet know how Solovy had victimized me, by concealing the pre-May-2000 existence of appeal 99-30210.) As I vaguely recall (not referring to any record) my appeal had to be filed on a Monday, perhaps it was in January or February 2002. At virtually the last minute, perhaps on a Thursday before, I finally received a copy of "the appeal". By that time, I had learned plenty of federal criminal and appeal law. I saw the appeal that Levins had written, the one that she had CONCEALED from me for 4 months, and it was obvious that it was intended to sabotage my case. Which, in fact, it did. There were at least 100 incredibly valid appeal issues which, if they had been argued properly, would have easily freed me, but Levins argued NONE of them. Perhaps the day later, maybe it was Friday, the weekday before the appeal had to be filed, I obtained a telephone call to Levins. In that call, I accused Levins of deliberately sabotaging my case, saying that her failure to even respond to my 100+ pages of letters proved that she was a crook. She didn't deny it! When it was clear that Levins wasn't going to apologize, I ORDERED her to NOT file that appeal. I told her, "You're fired! You must not file that appeal! And if you're already filed it, I order you to withdraw it!!!". Strong words, but quite appropriate under the circumstances. The result? She DIDN'T resign. She filed the appeal. She DIDN'T have it withdrawn. The appeal lost, as I knew it would. --- Mr. Greenberg, you should be utterly and completely ashamed for what you have done. You have thoroughly and completely misrepresented virtually every fact, implication, and nuance relating to me and my legal cases, and virtually everything I said/wrote to you. You LIED by claiming of your lawyer, "She read Bell's letter, then checked his legal file, which showed that he had fired practically every court-appointed lawyer ever assigned to him---little wonder that he had botched his appeals. It also showed he had filed fifty-one lawsuits against the government while in prison---nearly all dismissed immediately. She wanted nothing to do with it." Mr. Greenberg, your lawyer is totally incompetent to have said ANY of these things. I have made perfectly clear in my recent set of emails to you: 1. You never verified any of these supposed 'facts', when in fact you had access to my 02-1052 lawsuit which would have told you the truth. 2. I never was SUCCESSFUL at firing ANY attorney assigned to my case. 3. I never ATTEMPTED to fire Avenia, Mandel, Floit, Bukey, and Solovy. 4. When, finally, I did begin to ATTEMPT to fire an attorney, Leen, I was entirely unsuccessful, indeed for a period of 9 years. 5. When I did ATTEMPT to fire Annemarie Levins, and ordered her to NOT file that appeal, I was completely unsuccessful in that attempt. 6. I did not file "Fifty-one lawsuits against the government". As I have already explained to you, I DID file well over 100 "habeas corpus" actions, which your lawyer was apparently unable to distinguish from 'lawsuits'. But since your lawyer probably didn't even bother to do anymore than read the dockets for some of these cases, it is perfectly obvious that she had no genuine idea why these habeas corpus actions were "dismissed immediately". In other words, she (presumably) didn't know whether those dismissals were 'genuine', or whether the dismissals were entirely frivolous. I can assure you that these dismissals were entirely frivolous. But, you didn't check my side of the story, because YOU DIDN'T ASK ME! That's called "bias". 7. _I_ never "botched any appeals". The appeals, to the extent they were 'botched', were 'botched' by the attorneys who were assigned to me, and (I claim) were actually assigned for the PURPOSE of 'botching' those appeals. Mr. Greenberg, at this point you have an obligation, not merely to APOLOGIZE, but in fact to set the record straight. And I mean, not only in future editions of your book, but also to investigate the reality of the facts of the case. After all of the victimization I faced at the hands of the government and its thugs, you come along and make the situation worse! You try to make me look like a nut, when the reality is precisely as I have long claimed: I am the victim of the Federal government and its employees and agents. At no time did I lie or misrepresent the truth. At EVERY time the Federal government and its agents misrepresent the truth. Mr. Greenberg, I have decided to publish the contents of this email in the Cypherpunks mailing list, to show that I have put you on notice as to your complicity in this matter. You can fix part of the problem by changing your book, and by writing a long article for Forbes telling (at least) how you claim to have been hoodwinked by the Federal Government. Morally, that will help a bit, but it won't change the fact that you were utterly unwilling to pursue the truth when it mattered most. Jim Bell ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Jim Bell <jamesdbell8(a)yahoo.com<mailto:jamesdbell8@yahoo.com>> To: Andrew Greenberg <agreenberg(a)forbes.com<mailto:agreenberg@forbes.com>> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 1:26 PM Subject: Fw: Your errors about me in your book. Mr Greenberg, I will continue about the history of 'my' attorneys, who were 'my' attorneys in name only: They were actually the attorneys of "The United States of America", and of their colluding employees. While I would like to say that my 'next' attorney was Jonathan Solovy, given the paperwork I should first deal with a couple of 'asterisks', named Catherine Floit and David Bukey. At some point after I wrote that letter to the Ninth Circuit Court, I received a letter (about June 2000?) from an attorney named Catherine Floit. I called her by telephone, and I explained a bit about the history of prior attorneys Peter Avenia and Judith Mandel. I further explained that I had very, very serious suspicions about government corruption by these attorneys, and the government in general. I said that I would be suing those attorneys, and any other people who assisted the government corruption I then suspected. (Note: Remember, at that point, I did not know about the pre-April existence of phony, forged Ninth Circuit Court appeal 99-30210.) I was surprised when that phone call to Catherine Floit didn't last very long after that! (A minute?) 'What happened?', I thought! It turns out that Floit later contacted the people who had appointed her (the Public Defenders' Office in Seattle Washington, I think.) and asked to be de-assigned to my case. I later heard that she CLAIMED (quite falsely) that I had 'threatened' her! But I hadn't threatened her at all! I had no reason to do so, particularly at that early stage in her representation. But at this point I knew very little about the law. Eventually (a few years later, after I first saw the docket for the forged appeal case 99-30210, in late June 2003; see Jonathan Solovy's 'representation', which I will shortly write about) I realized that Floit must have been informed about the fact that the case she had been assigned to handle, 99-30210, was ALREADY a fraud, and in my phone call with her she learned that I was rather well-informed about the corruption of those two prior attorneys, Avenia and Mandel, AND that I intended to sue them, etc. In other words, she understood that if she took that case, and if she did what the government wanted her to do, she herself was almost certainly going to get sued, and for exactly the kinds of things that Avenia and Mandel were already 'in the crosshairs' for having done in the past. When an attorney is ASSIGNED a case (by a judge or a court) it's fairly hard to 'get out of it'. Such an attorney has to have a rather 'good' (but not necessarily, 'valid') reason to be relieved of that responsibility. Floit (I realized, years later) could not have simply said, "Jim Bell is on to them/us!!! He's going to sue us!". Floit could not have said, "The government is engaging in corruption against Bell, and I don't want to be part of it!". So, what was she going to do? It turns out that the easiest way for her to get out of the assignment was to (falsely) claim, "Jim Bell threatened me!!!". Which she, apparently, did. But I DIDN'T threaten her. But that didn't matter: Floit's mere allegation amounted to a "Get out of representation free" card, analogous to Monopoly's "Get out of jail free" card. She was not obligated to actually prove I'd done anything: No proof was required, or even requested. The allegation itself was quite enough. As she, no doubt, knew quite well. A few weeks later, another attorney (David Bukey) was assigned, but I didn't hear of that. I was not given any notification that Bukey had been assigned: Apparently Bukey heard of his assignment, refused it, and he never contacted me. Nor did anyone else contact me, either, on any subject, including that of Bukey or his (brief) assignment to my case. During this time, I wrote yet another letter to the Ninth Circuit Court basically asking, "Where's my representation?". Notice, now, that the count is up to FOUR: Avenia, Mandel, Floit, and Bukey: None of these attorneys did I ever attempt to 'fire'. (And I didn't even learn that Bukey was supposed to be representing me, until after he had been relieved of that.) The closest to even 'attempting to fire' I had done was when I tried to prevent Avenia from being relieved, because I didn't want his successor (who turned out to be Mandel: I didn't want anybody assigned, because I had already gotten promises from Avenia to do investigation, which eventually he never effectively did) to be assigned. But at that, I was unsuccessful at both, of course. Jonathan Solovy: Eventually, Solovy was assigned to case 99-30210, as I vaguely recall in about August 2000. Keep in mind that I STILL didn't know about the pre-May-2000 existence of case 99-30210 as of then: I would only learn of that pre-May-2000 existence when I wrote for, and received, the docket for 99-30210 in late June 2003. Solovy didn't do anything OBVIOUSLY wrong. At least, I didn't recognize that in 2000. He wrote the appeal, 99-30210, filed it, and it lost. I think he may also have written a Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court, which also obviously failed. (I don't recall what they contained; I didn't learn the law until beginning December 2000). But I can say this much: At no time during Solovy's representation did he EVER say to me anything that would have alerted me to the pre-May-2000 existence of case 99-30210. I may not have known much (or even 'anything') about Federal law in September, 2000, but if he had said something like "Jim, I see you've been assigned pro-se to this appeal since July 1999: What are your theories as to appealing this case?" I would have been alerted, with a distinct start, and I would have instantly asked him, "What do you mean? I thought I began this case in April 2000, when I wrote a letter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? What's this about July 1999?!?". By the time I first saw a copy of the docket for case 99-30210, on about June 20, 2003, I knew FAR more Federal law. I'd spent since about December 2000 in a jail/prison law library. In fact, two of the REASONS I wrote to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in early June 2003, asking for the docket for 99-30210, were: 1. Clearing up loose ends for my Portland Federal Court lawsuit, 02-1052, I remembered that I had (thought!) initiated that appeal (99-30210) by means of mailing a letter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, asking for an appeal. (In case 97-5270, as I recall). As of June 2003, I understood that the rules required that to appeal, somebody needs to file a 'Notice of Appeal' within about two weeks of the date of the order-entry. My letter of April 2000 was, I then realized, nearly ten (10) months too late to initiate an appeal in that case. "So why," I thought, "wasn't that letter immediately rejected?!?" and "Why did they give me that appeal?" 2. At some point, I recognized that the case-number of that appeal (99-30210) started with the number, "99", which stands for "1999", the date that appeal was initiated. In other words, I eventually realized (June 2003) that that appeal had been begun in 1999, NOT in 2000. Evidently, my letter of April 2000 DIDN'T 'start the ball rolling' on that appeal. Therefore, and being quite suspicious, I wrote a bland, routine note in early June 2003 to the Ninth Circuit, asking for the copy of the docket for case 99-30210, which I had never seen before. I received an envelope about June 20, 2003, containing a copy of that docket. The most obvious thing that struck me about that docket was that case 99-30210 DIDN'T start in April 2000, as I had previously assumed. It was quite clear, instead that it had begun in July 1999. (Although, the 'Notice of Appeal' had actually been filed about June 20, 1999). Something VERY VERY suspicious had been going on! Secondly, I looked through the various docket entries, and I could see that this case had appeared to have been active: Ostensibly, I had actually been 'pro se' (representing myself) which I knew that I hadn't been doing! (because, of course, I hadn't even known about the existence of that case, prior to May 2000, thinking I initiated it with a letter to the Ninth Circuit in late April 2000). In fact, I could see that there were two filings, about November 10, 1999, and March 2, 2000, which purported to have been filed by me! (And, obviously, I knew that I hadn't filed them!) Most importantly, I realized that I had not received ANY of these many mailings while I was at Seatac FDC (until Sept 3, 1999) nor any while I was at Phoenix FCI (From Sept 10, 1999 though April 13, 2000, when I was released; I was at the Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center for a week from Sept 3 to Sept 10, 1999.) Note: I received NONE of the mailings from the Ninth Circuit Court during July 1999 through April 2000, because the Bureau of Prisons staff at both those locations hid them from me. (Did not deliver them to me). If I had received EVEN ONE of those mailings, I would have been alerted that an appeal existed. I didn't receive even a single one. Of course, I wasn't EXPECTING a single one, either, because I was not then aware that appeal 99-30210 existed. But there was more. I looked at the docket item numbers at the middle of the docket pages (between the dates on the left, and the descriptions of the entries on the right) and I noticed that they were not all there. Some were out of order (I later understood that merely being out of order is not abnormal) but 29 of the first 79 docket entry numbers simply were not present! Since I already knew there had to be a dramatic amount of corruption associated with this case, I considered that a very significant clue. Later, weeks and months later, I showed this docket to numerous 'jailhouse lawyers', and to a person, they said they had never seen even a single 'missing' docket entry number on any dockets they had ever seen. Over the subsequent years, I also looked at any docket I could get my hands on, and never once was I able to identify even a single 'missing' docket entry number on any docket. An explanation is in order. I believe that in about May 2000, some of the staff of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals engaged in a 'forgery party' of the docket for case 99-30210. I think that they realized that they could not deny me an appeal in that probation-revocation case, BECAUSE THEY HAD ALREADY GIVEN ME THAT APPEAL! But, they also realized that they couldn't simply continue on with that forgery, because they knew that I DIDN'T KNOW of the existence of appeal 99-30210 during the time of June 1999 through April 2000. They knew that they couldn't simply initiate a new appeal, because a record of appeal 99-30210 already existed. They also knew that they couldn't allow me to see a copy of the docket for 99-30210, because that would have alerted me (just as it eventually alerted me in June 2003) that the appeal had existed, yet had been concealed from me during the period June 1999 through April 2000. What they had to do, I think, was to RE-forge that docket, which they did in May 2000, and then assign a colluding attorney (First Floit, then Bukey, then Solovy) who would help conceal the history of this case from me, and then write a serviceable 'appeal', so that it could lose: Their hope, apparently, was that I would be satisfied with that. And until June 2003, I was indeed 'satisfied'. Perhaps a couple months after I first saw that copy of the docket for case 99-30210, I wrote a letter to Jonathan Solovy. (He had never been 'de-assigned' to my case). I don't recall, precisely, what I said (It's been 10 years!), but I asked him to look into into the problem. His response? Well, suddenly he had developed 'carpal tunnel syndrome' (I was well aware of that condition) and he couldn't handle my case anymore! I insisted; He wrote to the judge, asking that he be allowed to withdraw. Actually, I think he wrote to the WRONG judge! I think he wrote to Judge Burgess, of the District Court case, 97-5270, NOT the Ninth Circuit appeals court (99-30210). But it didn't matter: he was allowed to withdraw. Please note: Jonathan Solovy was my FIFTH attorney, if you are counting Avenia, Mandel, Floit, and Bukey before him. And note that I didn't try to get Solovy, either, 'fired'. Indeed, yet again I wanted to see Solovy to continue to handle that case (99-30210) in large part BECAUSE I knew that he had committed fraud against me and, kinda-sorta, against the court as well. But, Solovy's fraud was in league with the U.S. Attorneys (Seattle), the Federal Bureau of Prisons staff at FDC Seatac, and at FCI Phoenix, and the staff of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and possibly others. So, where did you come up with that claim that I fired "all" of my attorneys, HMMMMMMMM????????? Sorry if I display a little schadenfreude, but I think I've earned the right to complain. And I still haven't yet mentioned attorney Robert Leen, and Annemarie Levins, either!!! I'll talk about them next. Jim Bell ----- Forwarded Message ----- On 11/14/13 7:15 PM, "Jim Bell" <jamesdbell8(a)yahoo.com<mailto:jamesdbell8@yahoo.com>> wrote: Mr. Greenberg, This is further commentary about your claim that I fired 'every' attorney I was assigned. That, as I previously stated, was and is laughably incorrect. Please see Claims 130 through 145, in my July 2003 Lawsuit, "James Dalton Bell et al v. District Courts of Tacoma and Seattle, et al", case number 02-1052, as amended on about July 14, 2003, for what I mentioned in my previous message, copied below. It's available on the Web, at: <http:///> cryptome.org/jdb-v-usa-106.htm<http://cryptome.org/jdb-v-usa-106.htm> <http:///> See, further, Claims 146-161, describing how attorney Judith Mandel was forced onto me. Strictly speaking, I didn't try to 'fire' Mandel: More accurately, I tried to prevent Mandel from being inflicted onto me, although I was unsuccessful. Mandel actually REQUESTED to withdraw, on about June 2, 1999 (See my Claim 158 in Lawsuit 02-1052). You will notice very few references to forged, fraudulent 9th Circuit Court of Appeal case 99-30210 in my lawsuit. The reason is that I was having another person edit this lawsuit, in the Portland Oregon area, and I only discovered the pre-April-2000 existence of case 99-30210 in about June 20, 2003. That lawsuit had been originally filed in about July 2002, and there was a 1-year limitation period on my amending that lawsuit, in order to obtain the benefit of the earlier (2002) filing date. Thus, I had very little time in which to do those edits: I had to write a very few such edits, mail them to the person doing the edits in the Portland area, where he made those edits, and then have copies of the amendment printed up and filed at Portland Oregon Federal Court. It was, I believe, Judith Mandel who filed the one-page "Notice of Appeal" (About June 20, 1999) for my probation-revocation case in Tacoma Federal Court. (And she resigned about June 21, 1999). But she never sent me a copy of that notice. Of course, I didn't know that at the time. (And she never mailed to me a copy of her file on my case, which she should have done if she had been going to 'allow' me to defend myself in any subsequent appeal.) Even that wouldn't have been a problem, EXCEPT that all of the mailings subsequently done by the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals (or should have been done?) were never delivered to me: First, at my address at Seatac Federal Detention Center (FDC), until about Sept 3, 1999, and subsequently (beginning about Sept 10, 1999) at Phoenix FCI. The only plausible explanation for this combination is that there was careful collusion between Mandel, the Tacoma Federal Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the staff of Seatac FDC and (later) Phoexnix FCI. If even ONE of the mailings that I should have gotten from the Ninth Circuit Court had actually arrived and had been delivered to me, I would have been aware of the existence of that appeal, case 99-30210. My recollection is that in April 2000, I wrote a letter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, still unaware of the existence of case 99-30210. I demanded an appeal on my probation-revocation case. (I had been told, by a jailhouse-lawyer, in early 2000 that I had a right to an appeal.) What I didn't know (because I didn't know the law at that point) that in order to obtain an appeal, I would have had to have filed a "Notice of Appeal" within two weeks after the entry of the order: About June 1999. So, if I had know the rules, I would not have written that letter, because I would have realized that I was about 10 months too late. But, the reality is that the appeal ALREADY EXISTED, though I didn't know that at the time. In fact, I only learned in June 2003 that case 99-30210 had existed as early as July 1999. So, you can see that I DIDN'T even attempt to fire attorney Judith Mandel. So, why did you say I fired her? Why did you say I fired her predecessor, Peter Avenia? I think by now you're getting a sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach, but it's going to get worse, much worse! I will continue to show that I did not SUCCEED in firing ANY attorney, and that in all cases those attorneys continued to victimize me until the damage they could do was done. Then, on their own initiative (and with the approval of a colluding judge), they left. Jim Bell ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Jim Bell <jamesdbell8(a)yahoo.com<mailto:jamesdbell8@yahoo.com>> To: Andrew Greenberg <agreenberg(a)forbes.com<mailto:agreenberg@forbes.com>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:21 AM Subject: Your errors about me in your book. From Page 132 of "This Machine Kills Secrets". You commented about my "truly phenomenal discovery". I have sent you a copy of the as-published PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty), for my isotopically-modified optical fiber invention. Corning says that 300 billion meters of optical fiber are made each year; If I get 10% market penetration, that's 30 billion meters. At $0.25 per meter of fiber royalty, that's $7.5 billion per year, or $150 billion over the patent's 20-year lifetime. However, this is only one of a few dozen inventions I have thought of involving isotopically-modified materials, although it is the most readily doable and is like the most profitable. In principle, however, my fiber optic inventions number far more than this: The main problem is that isotope separation is rather expensive, and any such invention isn't worth doing unless the benefit from the material or device exceeds the cost of that separation. The main reason my optical fiber is practical is that the isotopically-modified core of the 125-micron fiber is only about 30 microns in diameter, so that it uses very little isotopically-modified material. My estimate of 5000 patents is still reasonable, based on what I know now, but it will require the development of ever-cheaper ways of separating isotopes. Next: The article says (page 133) that "he had fired practically every court-appointed lawyer ever assigned to him". Actually, that is absolutely NOT true, although the truth requires some explanation that you didn't bother to ask me. I could say, accurately, that I "Never" fired ANY attorney, but again that requires some explanation. (More precisely, I never SUCCEEDED in firing ANY lawyer: In every circumstance where I tried to fire an attorney, that attorney was continued to be forced upon me, for weeks, months, or in one case years, and if and when that attorney finally withdrew, it wasn't because _I_ wanted him to leave, it was because he (or she) had finally achieved the damage to me that he (or she) was trying to do, and he (or she) obtained the permission of the judge to withdraw. You have a major responsibility here! To my recollection, you NEVER asked me about me 'firing' any attorney, yet you put this material in your book as if it were true. You have based your commentary on these false 'facts', and you didn't check with me to see if I had a correction or other explanation. Peter Avenia was my first attorney (1997-1999). I never even tried to fire him. And, in fact, I tried to get the judge (Burgess) in about April 1999 to REFUSE Avenia's request to withdraw. Why? In 1998, I consented to an unnecessary 'mental evaluation' (in Springfield Missouri) based on Avenia's promise that he would investigate my allegations that the government had been spying on me. In fact, the only basis for the government's request for a 'mental evaluation' was my claim that the government was spying on me! Please note that the government didn't deny that it had been spying; the prosecutor didn't comment on that. Can you see why this is a problem? It turns out that the government was, indeed, spying on me, including during the period of April 1998 and June 1998, after which they arrested me for a 'supervised violation'. In fact, they had placed a tracking device in at least one of my parents' cars (A Lincoln). "What's wrong with that", you might ask? Well, in 2012 the US Supreme Court ruled (U.S. v. Jones) that such a placement was a "search" under the 4th Amendment. Indeed, in a 1999 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case (U.S. v. McIver) , that court ruled that it was legal (under certain circumstances inapplicable to me) for 'cops' (term used generically) to place a tracking device on a subject's car. Problem was, in the McIver there was actually a CRIME being investigated (Marijuana growing) and the subject was directly linked to that crime. In stark contrast, I was neither suspected or known to have been involved in any crime, then-past, then-present, or then-future. In other words, these Feds actually just placed the tracking on the car without any legitimate law-enforcement reason. They did not want, however, to have the fact of their arguably-illegal placement of the tracking devices(s) openly mentioned in any court hearing. I, quite the opposite, DEMANDED to my attorney, Avenia, that he verify the tracking device(s) placement, and argue the matter in court. He promised to do that, in mid 1998, but he later (April 1999) broke his promise by resigning, and his replacement also refused. In other words, I was denied an actual defense due to the collusion of two of 'my' attorneys as well as the government. One of the major things I wanted to do was to prove that the Feds were employing what should be illegal tactics (such as the GPS tracking device) not for any legitimate reason, but simply because they considered me to be their 'enemy', not because they thought I was going to commit any crime. I wanted to be able to show that they were "offending" against me, because of (among other things) my allegation that they had employed a jailhouse snitch ("Ryan Thomas Lund") to attack me, which he did on November 25, 1997. (See version 1.06 of my Portland Oregon Federal Court lawsuit, 02-1052, version filed in July of 2003. Avenia agreed to have an investigator do that. I went to that (useless) evaluation, but when I returned I continued to insist on the investigation that Avenia had promised. Indeed, he eventually did send an investigator ("Sharon Callas") to do an investigation, in Vancouver Washington. Mysteriously, she resigned very shortly after doing that investigation, and I was never given the results. Avenia was allowed (by the Judge, Burgess, now dead) to resign in about April 1999. I objected at a court hearing, because I had gotten Avenia to PROMISE to do an investigation, and I was afraid (correctly, as it turns out) that any replacement of him would fail or refuse to bring out the issues concerning the government's crimes and misdeeds against me. More tomorrow. Jim Bell

1 0

ECC curves that are safe safecurves.cr.yp.to
by gwen hastings 11 Jan '14

11 Jan '14

DJ Bernstein and Tanja Lange did a study on which ECC curves are safe to implement and use, found at http://safecurves.cr.yp.to/ YMMV as per the snowden releases but for now curve p25514 appears to be safe AND accessible in at least 2 cli type implementations. To be avoided at present is SECCURE-0.4 and below(no safe curves as per the bernstein document) GH -- Tentacle #99 ecc public key curve p25519(pcp 0.15) 1l0$WoM5C8z=yeZG7?$]f^Uu8.g>4rf#t^6mfW9(rr910 Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.’ https://github.com/TLINDEN/pcp.git to get pcp(curve25519 cli)

2 1

Re: Jacob Appelbaum in Germany
by Cathal Garvey 11 Jan '14

11 Jan '14

But he'd have been a felon, then. And unable to participate meaningfully in politics from "the inside", which I gather to have been his ultimate mission. Aaron was the ultimate white-knight, he wanted to go all the way to the White House and fix things from the inside. Of course, he'd have failed; systems like this aren't constructed, they *evolve* by surviving many white knights and adapting to them. Part of the defense system (according to my pet theory of corrupt-state-evolution) of a long-lived corruption is "wayside tempatations" in the form of seemingly unbelievable illegalities that are trivially assaulted on their basis, but which in so doing permanently remove someone from the establishment. In other words, as white knights rise through the system, they are increasingly tempted to use their expanding power and influence to attack problems within their reach, but when they do so they are picked off from the ladder of power, leaving their carefree sociopathic brethren to rise to power. In Aaron's case, he saw copyright and privatisation of publicly funded research as anathema, which of course it is. And being at that point of some power and influence for his tier of political clout, he felt he could use his academic ties to cover for his "Open Access Manifesto". In fact, he probably could have done, if MIT stood with him and referred to his work as research; I imagine he was surprised that they didn't. Other "wayside temptations" are things like criminalisation of piracy, drug war, institutional racism, censorship, surveillance, tax evasion by the wealthy and overtaxation of the poor. All of these and more are issues that, if addressed directly by a rising star, can either lead to felonies or criminalities, or merely an avenue by which to strip a person of their political viability by PR assault. To read several accounts by those who knew him well, it appears to me that Aaron wasn't trying to escape a long-or-short prison term, but the loss of any chance to pursue his dream of political reform through the supposedly-legitimate, electionary route. On 01/01/14 20:28, Jim Bell wrote: > No, I'm sorry, I have no links with other MIT alums. > > One big misunderstanding that would have been able to clear up with aaron swartz had I been aware of his situation, that I hope other readers will now learn, is the issue of how much time he (or other federal defendants) would have faced if convicted. Federal criminal laws generally include with them a statement of the maximum punishment that can be applied: They are generally even numbers, such as "5 years", "10 years", "15 years" or so. However, such statements are basically archaic: In 1987, the laws were changed (prisoners called it "new law") to calculate sentences based on the defendant's criminal history, the severity of the crime, and other facts. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines > > > The following sentencing table is part of that Wikipedia article. I assume that Aaron Swartz would have had a "zero" "criminal history", in other words the Column labelled "I" (0 or 1) would have been used. An offense level up to 8 would have specified a sentence between 0 and 6 months. I would have to look up the specific charges to see what he faced, but I strongly doubt that he would have been sentenced to over 2 years, and probably under 1 year. > > Jim Bell > > > ================quote from Wikipedia begins================ > > > Sentencing table > The sentencing table is an integral part of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.[24] > The Offense Level (1-43) forms the vertical axis of the Sentencing > Table. The Criminal History Category (I-VI) forms the horizontal axis of the Table. The intersection of the Offense Level and Criminal History > Category displays the Guideline Range in months of imprisonment. "Life" > means life imprisonment. For example, the guideline range applicable to a defendant with an Offense Level of 15 and a Criminal History Category > of III is 24–30 months of imprisonment. > Sentencing Table (effective Nov. 2012) > (showing months of imprisonment)[25][26] > Offense Level ↓ > Criminal History Category > (Criminal History Points) > I > (0 or 1) > II > (2 or 3) > III > (4,5,6) > IV > (7,8,9) > V > (10,11,12) > VI > (13+) > Zone A > 10-6 0-6 0-6 0-6 0-6 0-6 > 20-6 0-6 0-6 0-6 0-6 1-7 > 30-6 0-6 0-6 0-6 2-8 3-9 > 40-6 0-6 0-6 2-8 4-10 6-12 > 50-6 0-6 1-7 4-10 6-12 9-15 > 60-6 1-7 2-8 6-12 9-15 12-18 > 70-6 2-8 4-10 8-14 12-18 15-21 > 80-6 4-10 6-12 10-16 15-21 18-24 > Zone B > 94-10 6-12 8-14 12-18 18-24 21-27 > 106-12 8-14 10-16 15-21 21-27 24-30 > 118-14 10-16 12-18 18-24 24-30 27-33 > Zone C > 1210-16 12-18 15-21 21-27 27-33 30-37 > 1312-18 15-21 18-24 24-30 30-37 33-41 > Zone D > 1415-21 18-24 21-27 27-33 33-41 37-46 > 1518-24 21-27 24-30 30-37 37-46 41-51 > 1621-27 24-30 27-33 33-41 41-51 46-57 > 1724-30 27-33 30-37 37-46 46-57 51-63 > 1827-33 30-37 33-41 41-51 51-63 57-71 > 1930-37 33-41 37-46 46-57 57-71 63-78 > 2033-41 37-46 41-51 51-63 63-78 70-87 > 2137-46 41-51 46-57 57-71 70-87 77-96 > 2241-51 46-57 51-63 63-78 77-96 84-105 > 2346-57 51-63 57-71 70-87 84-105 92-115 > 2451-63 57-71 63-78 77-96 92-115 100-125 > 2557-71 63-78 70-87 84-105 100-125 110-137 > 2663-78 70-87 78-97 92-115 110-137 120-150 > 2770-87 78-97 87-108 100-125 120-150 130-162 > 2878-97 87-108 97-121 110-137 130-162 140-175 > 2987-108 97-121 108-135 121-151 140-175 151-188 > 3097-121 108-135 121-151 135-168 151-188 168-210 > 31108-135 121-151 135-168 151-188 168-210 188-235 > 32121-151 135-168 151-188 168-210 188-235 210-262 > 33135-168 151-188 168-210 188-235 210-262 235-293 > 34151-188 168-210 188-235 210-262 235-293 262-327 > 35168-210 188-235 210-262 235-293 262-327 292-365 > 36188-235 210-262 235-293 262-327 292-365 324-405 > 37210-262 235-293 262-327 292-365 324-405 360-life > 38235-293 262-327 292-365 324-405 360-life 360-life > 39262-327 292-365 324-405 360-life 360-life 360-life > 40292-365 324-405 360-life 360-life 360-life 360-life > 41324-405 360-life 360-life 360-life 360-life 360-life > 42360-life 360-life 360-life 360-life 360-life 360-life > 43life life life life life life > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Cari Machet <carimachet(a)gmail.com> > To: Jim Bell <jamesdbell8(a)yahoo.com> > Cc: "cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org" <cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org>; "lists(a)silent1.net" <lists(a)silent1.net> > Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2014 1:04 AM > Subject: Re: Jacob Appelbaum in Germany > > > > I sincerely wish you could have helped aaron it is all beyond sad and though some of his projects are being carried out i think we have to do more - Yes I am aware you are an alumni - do u have connections with other alumni ? We think the alumni are a pressure point they cld not ignore > > Will connect with you further as the project progresses > > Thanks very very much > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 31.12.2013, at 20:59, Jim Bell <jamesdbell8(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I am an alum of MIT (Class of 1980; Chemistry). I've just read the Wikipedia article on Aaron Swartz, and I am very sympathetic to him. I wish I'd been aware of his situation while he was alive; I might have been able to help, and would have tried to do so. >> Jim Bell >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Cari Machet <carimachet(a)gmail.com> >> To: Silent1 <lists(a)silent1.net> >> Cc: cpunks <cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 8:03 AM >> Subject: Re: Jacob Appelbaum in Germany >> >> >> dear sir >> >> we are reaching out to MIT alumni to make a public call of outrage re >> among other things the aaron swartz treatment by MIT would u b willing >> to b included? >> >> specifically we would b asking for shifts in functionality not just >> complaining to the bricks >> >> THANKS >> >> >> On 12/31/13, Silent1 <lists(a)silent1.net> wrote: >>> Ahh, Dogecoin, didn't an online wallet service of theirs get hacked last >>> week and completely cleaned out of hundreds of thousands of coins? >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: cypherpunks [mailto:cypherpunks-bounces@cpunks.org] On Behalf Of >>> coderman >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 8:51 AM >>> To: Griffin Boyce >>> Cc: cpunks >>> Subject: Re: Jacob Appelbaum in Germany >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Griffin Boyce <griffin(a)cryptolab.net> >>> wrote: >>>> ... >>>> I prefer my shared hallucinations to be in the form of Lindens [1], ... >>> >>> >>> i'll let you cypherpunks in on a secret financial tip: >>> the smart money banks in dogecoin: http://dogecoin.com/ >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Cari Machet >> NYC 646-436-7795 >> carimachet(a)gmail.com >> AIM carismachet >> Skype carimachet - 646-652-6434 >> Syria +963-099 277 3243 >> Amman +962 077 636 9407 >> Berlin +49 152 11779219 >> Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> >> >> Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the >> addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the >> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this >> information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without >> permission is strictly prohibited. >> >> >> >>

22 103

Re: Fw: Hi, I'm from the government (addenda)
by brian carroll 10 Jan '14

10 Jan '14

(need to clarify this statement so it makes some sense...) > so, any given issue like [work] or [school] as a perspective > is likely unshared because it does not parse the same across > generations, and oftentimes an older constituency of the state, > those most privileged and served by the existing corruption, > seem to think their views superior and more knowing of the > conditions and accurate - instead of out of touch and out of > date, nostalgic and unreal to others existing in very different > circumstances and parameters and dynamics, generations > upon generations subsidized by handouts from the retired- > class, who have all the money not inside billionaires coffers i believe the "success" of the capitalist system based on money as primary value - from individual scaled up to local/global state - is an ILLUSION. a fiction that is not supported by facts evaluated in terms other than money (that is, where money equates w/truth) an earlier generation benefited by the existing system and then collapsed. such that, once upon a time a person could get a decent education, a living wage job, pay their bills, marry and have a family, own a vehicle, purchase a house (e.g. $10,000 about 40 years ago that today may be $150,000 and upwards), and then even start a business, or have a thing aka 'a career', that would be a path towards retirement, relaxation in old age those who succeeded, especially at a higher rate of profitability then could support their children and make up the gap, where school began to cost more money, house mortages needed a downpayment which parents could pay as gift, or a car would be purchased as a leg up, especially as living wage becomes few and far between, college debt balloons, the family unit collapses thus foundational social relations evaporates, and yet these weaknesses could be managed by those with such larger financial connections. and if they - the children - succeed in this system, it is viewed as the system is working and not that it is based on subsidizing it within the basic parameters, via those who have more wealth propping up those who do not the myth of 'self-made' person then, that hoary arrogant belief is not only based on a corrupt implementation that benefits a few people at the expense of the many, structurally, it also is based on a privilege utilized and extended by those who have money, as it subsidizes their staying 'within the system' as if more competitive and fit, morally superior, than those without such an additional support structure. survival then can largely depend on existing wealth in proximity to an individual who is otherwise in a situation supposedly on the level with others, and in this way, basic relations and dynamics often involve string-pulling or behind-the-scenes influence to how various situations play out, as if ~natural, based on competition or superior skills or ability, than having one person financed by a hidden investor and others not, as it whittles away people who can do more than be subsidized, follow rules, draw in the lines, not upset investors or risk the support structure; (so too, 'father figure' as if god, moral, wise, all that bullshit) it is systematic private tutelage required for the 'capitalist' system to _appear to work, as it is then represented that people are independent, pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps, versus having (really, actually, public) subsidies (via theft of the commons). so this is to say 'parents' and-or 'families' can provide this over generations, depending also on exactly how wealthy they are- such that grandparents can contribute to college via retirement funds or whatever, stock dividends for a given year- while also checking their social security because- you know, ~it is 'their money'... (in such a way that working poor are subsidizing the rich, and this pressure then increases the yearly livability gap) at the top of society and the top of this heat of madness is 'superman', the male head of household, whose spouse or wife -if not yet divorced- has likely sacrificed her goals and her freedoms to allow this illusion of mastery to develop... one person's freedoms sacrificed for freedoms of another (though this also happens on a mass scale). the 'man' is then the person who "thinks" and "knows" and "decides" and financial success is tied to his success and abilities; again, an illusion. divorce an indication this is imbalanced as a relational condition- spouse as servant or handmaid. so too entire families can prop up the narcissistic ego of 'the breadwinner' who then conquers society, hunts prey to gain survival and existence, and then this belief in his superiority based on success in these defined parameters. i am good at business- i am a warrior! etc. identity of man funneled into certain functioning that is removed of goals and views outside his own immediate need, this privilege then equated with larger social responsibility as it maps to the state at large, he is the soldier fighting the war by pursuing his own self interest, he is the competitor, the decider, the succeeder, the intellect, the champion of his own life and those who he supports around him. the problem is that it is mostly bullshit, based on lies. that this 'survival of the fittest' is highly rigged, based on special and unique privileges, corruption, not accounting for truth, and believing in inhuman values that govern over social and other relations by default, as if emancipatory, an ideal model for state functioning, best of all possible worlds, where it is his world, his ideas, his goals and beliefs, his interests first, that define, manage, evaluate the shared situation in his onesided terms and views, while errors are ignored based on higher authority as if a godhead, infallible, because 'he' is -history- effectively so some massive shithead like this then spreads the word as if simpleton business philosophy is real deal; concepts like [property] and [capital] and [work] and also [education] are brought to bear for constructing and relaying his POV... so this warped privileged, false-perspective then is shared and communicated about as if _standard, its corruption and false portrayal and non-accountability then normalized as if the measure by which other actions are held against, judged by virtue of 'what works' without calculating it beyond money [property] to this bastard fuck is having an education and degree lined up, a wife, a family, a house, vehicles, house, (probably cabin or perhaps additional real estate), career, vacations, travel, stuff beyond what any person needs (as this relates to inefficiency and hoarding of material goods) others in another generation may not even have a family structure, they may not attain an education or degree that allows career or work in field of interest, a living income is likely not available, they cannot afford a house, they have no spouse or even social relations potentially, they could not afford a vehicle, or to maintain it, or insurance, they may not have enough for food or clothing, they live within the property of another as renter, they never had a vacation, they cannot travel, and they fall outside culture due to lack of access or barriers to participation, and many view them as leeches and parasites of society for taking _away wealth from the succeeding and working class, even while systems that sustain these others or that they function within are the very cause for this incapacitation and state of degradation so the very ideology that is judging the 'failures' as immoral is the reason for this structural condition- its very -success- and yet this maps to a view that those with money are better than those without, more virtuous, by natural ability in terms of competition, versus this situation rigged to benefit some at the cost of many, while not allowing it to be accounted for because it is only evaluated in terms of money, not of its truth 'handouts' from the rich to those dependent whether legally or not, say children of these benefactors of state corruption, then create the false perspective that these 'citizens' thus subsidized are actually succeeding in the original parameters and are not propped up by those who actually benefited the most, and thus trickle-down is intergenerational from within family bloodlines, and not outside this private context, unless somehow views of philanthropy are equated with providing people with a fair and equal chance of success in competition-- that is not occurring. instead it is symbolic, to make it appear as if the system works in its functioning, that its ideological principles and beliefs are fundamentally 'true' based on continuing -subsidized- successes this is not 'a little grease in the wheel', this is requirement of having the grease canister perpetually attached to the wheel while others must go and function without, a deficit or gap which structurally and knowingly leads to their demise. this is the lie, that religious view that cannot be challenged and such heresy is quickly medicated away as rantings of crazy persons who are jealous and inferior, greedy, selfish, unkind thus, a view of [property] if evaluated in this range of potential interactions, could be a condition of power and mastery, over others and supposedly over the self (by way of narcissistic ego) and it can inherently involve subjugation of others to maintain or sustain this view which remains unaccounted for, whereas these other views of property are from the perspective of subjugation, of having these idiot superior fucks gloating about their power and supporting their weak-thinking genetic herds of monetists who think society only revolves around them and their needs, that they are the determiners of value, while truth of this is not accounted for beyond private limits and beliefs, which the corrupt US constitution allows as a warped prerogative entire professions based on this belief system, 'disciplines', modes of being, this enronomic inflation of shared ungrounded value held in common, the basis for 'mechanics of property' as this becomes economists, lawyers, businessmen, entrepreneurs who benefit from this condition and work to extend it for a limited shared set they belong to. in this way, the hypothesis that such corrupt capitalism is indistinguishable from corrupt communism, that it is entirely materialist, value is based on money, its control and 'thinking is bad' that does not conform to the belief system, and can be edited out, censored, destroyed, as if a moral action this idea of freedom at the cost of others, such that 'equal rights' are then taken away via this structural imbalance, is what then legitimizes the false view, that they are free to hold these views, it is their legal right as enshrined in signed documents and thus such activity is signed-off-on at the level of the 'unshared state' what is so absolutely totally crazy about this is that it is modeled as if a natural system, an ecosystem. though the structural bias has been normalized as if implicit in nature, such that some must be unemployed while others do the work or some must live while others must die off, so that 'the group' succeeds. the problem with this view is that it is artificial, nowhere in nature is a natural system likely allowing structural inefficiency to be normalized to subsidize the 'partial organism'. this is not the bird killing some of its young so that others can live scenario, given harsh resource conditions. it is something far beyond that, an ideological compromise that has become normalized. it is to consider a macro-organism in such a way that its 'economy' is only measured within subset relation of the whole, and not the entire entity as this economy in other words: success of the partial organism or ecosystem is isolated from its cost to sustain in those terms of functioning such that it is a false ecosystem, a fake view of involved events because its analysis is bounded to only 'what works' within the 'partial model' or subset, and not within the larger total society as organism. and thus 'the economy' that is profiting is based on the entropic removal of value (truth and money) from a larger condition, to support and sustain a smaller version inside of it, yet which is parasitic, requiring failure of the whole system so that the part can succeed, in this way it is self-cannibalistic (public.state (private state)) ===> (loss(profit)) the entropic exchange then removes value, hoards it with the few, exploits these dynamics by an enforced boundary '(' or limit, which then is based on beliefs that are beyond further accounting in their truth, such that 'shared belief' is equated with this 'truth' yet is not actually so, it is simply a 'shared view' of shared self-interest of some subset or group or identity, such as man and mankind... (human (woman (man (mankind)))) ---> 'man' (humanity) private superman and his ego as shared or unshared thus is able to rule over humanity, even if the beliefs are not based in truth or are warped, because of the power of money to force perspective, shared relations, communications, language into that framework (thank lawyers for giving the final seal of approval, courts as well) so when 'men' relate or private shared identities (i dunno, let us say antihuman homosexuals for instance) then humanity can be kept out of this 'shared public' interest, and one population or group and its interests can function against other, via economic means as normalized, streamlined, made mainstream as if shared value it is so devious it would have to be planned this way. it is just too warped to not be evaluated in more realistic terms, and yet-- and yet... that is exactly what happens. people routinely call up the iconic signage, the functions and protocols of [property] and can reference these as if standard, known, shared ideas of a common view or understanding, not accounting for the variance involved, and thus in referring to these 'views' or perspective in only partially grounded ways, it further supports and relies upon the falsity that they develop and allow, as ideological structures, such that the views of money are automatically unpacked as interpretations, foundation for analysis, that is thus friction-free in calling out or referencing such parameters, without accounting for their truth in a context beyond linear language, which is the predicament thus communication and language enforce the falsity by their continued and automatic use, continuing to repaint the views anew and afresh as if legitimate, stamps of approval to previous modeling now detached from realistic accounting for what exists and held and believed as religion, with faith in these views that then becomes and is the problem, the righteousness of viewpoint that can be ungrounded, a false perspective and framework that does not map to reality and instead sustains, aids the corruption the ideological view has been expertly engineered- rationalized, all it needs is to be used, employed and deployed, especially as if a theory - proven as physical law, versus hypothesis with error correction where the working-model is readily evaluated versus becoming dogma, an enforced belief beyond questioning or challenge. in this way, pseudo-truth replaces truth as value it gets crazy real fast- think of it, the realm of subsidy extending from a millionaire class and dependents, quasi new.royal lineage; the 'representatives' of the state and sports ~heroes alike, icons of the success of the system -- that it works -- for those like them (who the fuck would pay to watch commercials? the same people who pay to watch millionaires play sports in rigged competitions) this is the success story that supposedly validates the merits of the capitalist system in its privatization and enclavement, as it is represented by private wo|man and their demographic kind, this at the cost of humanity, earth, nature, life, love, sanity, truth itself only 'economics', 'politics', 'society' divorced from truth could allow this as a viewpoint, sustaining it as 'shared reasoning' within what is a highly protected boundary or border -- borders everywhere -- not only in physical though also mental property, gatekeepers of the mind and thinking, what modeling or viewpoints are allowed, as this aligns with institutionalized views, ideological, dogmatic, beneficial to the same expropriating flows of labor and material and value, while standing in as protesters against this, benefiting and relying upon the very thing stood against, via this ungrounded condition, 'shared belief' the delusional interconnection, dependency and literally- privilege, where conceit and hypocrisy go hand in hand those people over there making a survivable income are bad while my survivable income over here is morally superior, because belief it is all part of the same thing, just more major or minor variations- the success of the billionaires is the success of college graduates; it is the same fucking system, the same monetary values driving the interactions, bringing home the bread. to think otherwise is delusional, in so far as it partakes in language, communications, these exchanges in terms outside logical accounting for its truth- it is the very thing which sustains the ongoing development, that the terms it exists within as ideologically defined are the foundation for subsequent interactions-- that this 'history' is not challenged at the level of core ideas, and instead merely referenced, as another programming function or call or routine, more oil in the wheels, as it further fuses materialistic beliefs of capitalism/communism together as if some kind of liberation, greater freedom, via increased bondage and reliance upon structures, institutions, corrupted organizations and shared identities that can be manufactured and manipulated, subverted as a centuries-old practice, such hidden engineering 'the group' identity, some subset of private demographics, then directly equates with this oppression- difference as universalized, the fragmentary as if whole, in its warp and skew and unreality, and then to mediate situations on these 'shared terms' that are requiring of further oppression against the common human set; because people cannot get beyond themselves, they lost their own truth and identity to culture and institutions defining it for them in other terms, relations in superficial constructs as if all about freedom and 'think whatever you like' because it is easy to just believe its true, no one is going to falsify your viewpoint in a context of money as the value, the determining evidence in this way, 'ideas' and 'intellectualism' likewise a trap unless taken outside the prevailing normalized context. any reference to security or 'the economy' defaults to this corruption, this deep structural oppression and subjugation of populations supported by the false ideas and views, relations and beliefs then consider being duped, that there is an invading force of people who have a hostile agenda and are citizens standing side by side with us, as if fellow citizens yet hostile to these very 'ideas' and principles that go beyond monetary viewpoints the mainstream interactions and use of language, communication favor their agenda by default, and overtime it is the only viewpoint that can be reasoned in the faith-based system of money-as-truth that this 'historic' loss of freedom, and 'mankind' as fiction is also what is allowing this takeover and takedown of the state to occur, within these same parameters, due to lost accounting for actual truth in society, replaced by beliefs shared by benefactors of the system, the subsidization, the privilege, superiority complex as if natural ability and capacity, not gained by kneecapping others and locking the gate, ignoring all that because it benefits self first as privately defined, again, extension of private ego, ~superman though this warped view subsidized by oppression of surrounding others, spouses, the public, the future, those without resources a human viewpoint would quickly resolve this, unless there is a fight within the self disallowing it, which is thus a schizophrenic condition of fragmentary puzzlework that is not aligned correctly enough to get a new model or 'governance' in these terms, then it is a fight within the self, wo|man or human, as this can flip-flop back and forth, especially as it relates to truth and money, such that a condition of superposition exists for how interpretation and action grounds, in its accuracy, based on what motivations and structures, the circuitry of existence as mind and body relate in such a condition of [democracy] where hostile forces exist as voters and constituencies seek to fortify the corrupt state, another concept such as [dictatorship] could likewise have a range of interpretations, based on parameters it functions within and thus a 'democracy of moneymakers' may require checks- and-balances of a dictatorship of truth hidden as governance, somewhere deep within the shadows as backup structure, it is also a threat if 'dictator-of-moneymaker' was to align with this 'democracy-of-moneymakers' likewise. so even a context such as mass surveillance, hidden dictatorship, failed democracy, in their truth could still involve moral and ethical governance in terms of humans as the shared set. though if an observer is not evaluated in 'human terms' it is not possible to evaluate these situations in that larger structural viewpoint, and also evidence may be lacking to support such a view or belief until 'people' begin communicating in these more realistic frameworks, what is communicating and exchanged as views supports the failed state in its oppressive dynamics and goals. by standardizing and extending and normalizing the false, it is giving it currency as if truth, which is validated by its effects, in terms of profit and money as evidence of its reality, tangibility, as if money proves things, and also limits, defines this proof as with property, when someone has ideas for how to deal with this situation, in the past they may have had a career, a livelihood. today instead, ideas to 'fix' the corrupt state are unwanted, ignored, or abolished, instead, such people are viewed ~mentally-ill for not conforming to the worldview. is this really the foundation for freedom, and not for slavery? also, for those most invested in the status quo, they are more reliant on the lies that structure this mechanism for their own 'success' and survival. they have reason to believe because it benefits them most. in this way, the illusion that they exist in a greater realm of awareness and truth due to functioning inside the system is an illusion. there are more lies at the top of this false framework than at the bottom, where it is more readily observable the gap needed to be able to sustain the false perspective, viewpoints, beliefs that is, if truth is value. if money is the supreme value and virtue aligns with this, then 'greatest truth' would be with those with all the money, which is the cosmic setup, in that materialists then congregate together, and can then be mapped out, dealt with accordingly via future accounting in other words, the more connected a person is within the system the more reliant upon lies needed to sustain it and oppression of others, though this can be left out or removed from analysis, which is part of the hypocrisy of the privileged in this way the bane of causes, champions of issues who then function against these same parameters in human terms outside the economic model, where money determines truth it is as if the body replaces the mind as 'governer' and that physical proof that is materialistic is viewed highest evidence when instead this is actually accounted for in terms of money, in these same circuits, though within a shared 'group view' or belief system - again religion. whatever it is called, Marxist or Keynesian or Head-start or Obamacare or whateverthefuck in this way, zombies.culling of populations who do not conform or submit or shared demographics based within and upon a shared ideology, this falling into line, following, as if freedom, liberty, channeling efforts into the wrong circuits, agendas, and goals, though those which can be mechanized/realized within the existing false frameworks and parameters, though not reviewed for their integrity, which then is the basis for easy subversion, mimicry, camouflage for another hidden agenda not thinking-it-through at the level of logical analysis beyond binary then leads to this use of 'emanicpatory ideas' as a main form of oppression, via group think as institutionalized, whether alternative or countercult or not, authority-based that is again 'individual rights' scaled to society as warped universal the very problem and issue is communication, language, action in these terms- the very exchange in pseudo-truth allowing the whole edifice of lies and falsity to be maintained by not going several steps further, into the depths, to address the structures involved, the errors relied upon, and therefore these extended, becoming the basis for interactions, the basis for livelihoods, yet another brick in the wall, no matter what opinions or views held, reliant upon the very system, without self-consciousness or self-reflection or modeling skills or capacity to address and correct for errors, because society has been made _illiterate by these very same forces, interactions with self and others, relations and exchange occurring in majority falsity instead, shared beliefs as if truth when it just is not this simple and it is a shared condition, everyone exists in this, as if the cosmos has fallen in its truth, where truth was never secured and it is only getting worse and worse, more and more difficult to continue in the existing parameters, pressures increasing, and that enormous gap, within the self perhaps and also with others, every other a unique consideration of dimensionality, how relations wire or align or do not interconnect. how to go from existentialist alienation and nausea to shared human awareness, especially if 'private ego' is the standard POV a limit or boundary of observers, interpretation existing, this human view requires comprehension of true nature of self, a remodeling of relations internal and external, governance in these terms, which likely already exists yet may not be primary due to circumstance and prior decision-making if compass is misaligned or dealing in hostile force-fields to begin with, which is the default scenario, this detachment and to mention the hypocrisy of seeking to account for this, the antagonism of a lost humanity, the very people who do the most, seek the higher ideals then scrutinized for these efforts because of the way the circuitry actually functions is not as believed or perceived in private terms of identity as shared, subset, perhaps turned into careers, et cetera. this brutal awakening of the other which is humanity, in its loss of position and value of the state to the alter-ego of the self, fallen from grace, delusional and dangerous at its core there is love, in this securing of truth it is to redeem the internecine battles by a higher awareness and understanding that cannot escape tribulations of difference, opposition, disconnection, misalignment the economy, governance, social relations could be based on shared truth as a human value, instead of money. that could be how justice is determined and freedom is protected. and within this, love as a value and principle that has been removed from relations between people, except insofar as it is monetary it is to consider perspective, interpretation of observers who may view the same events yet parse them differently [evil] actions and [good] actions are variable, relative to the parameters evaluated within, based on what is of value for an antihuman materialist who believes money is truth, the basis for their objectivity, evil actions may map to those (such as the poor) who take away their money or who they must subsidize beyond their private frameworks, and thus rationalized subversion, exploitation, could be believed just and it could even become a malethical structural of the state, such that expropriation of resources to the rich set is ~divine, thus actions like these would be 'good', of highest virtue, etc whereas if this same situation was evaluated in terms of grounded truth, accurately determining what is good or evil would requires accounting for what is evil in terms of its truth, and what is good in terms of its truth, as concepts, as this maps to a shared human identity. an evil action could be viewed as taking away the ability to live from many people so that only few can live at their expense. good could be evaluated of those efforts that seek to remedy this situation though it may be limited by what is acknowledged as true, what can be recognized, and thus partialness is involved, as 'truth may not be separated from falsity' (as pT) and thus 'good intentions' could actually support evil actions unwittingly, an endless army of trojan horses in civilization, due to not establishing and securing this logical foundation beyond the binary, resulting in ideological shared beliefs that while believed 'true' and 'good' could function otherwise as the parameters are not adequately accounted for in the ways they exist beyond limits of relation as conceived or believed within the shared set, also benefiting enemies. in this way, 'monetary truth' ultimately can determine what is true, whether or not it is true, and also presume it 'good' because it is shared as a belief, as a consensus viewpoint, as if morality even if for different ends and opposed agendas; both grounding to the same shared false perspective ultimately that is how ideology has defeated ideas in their truth, its currency has more value in the working system and those who profit from it function as its prophets, extending beliefs, indoctrinating new disciplines, maintaining false frameworks at the cost of humanity, a real accurate model of what exists beyond private ID, accountable to truth as its measurement, for worth, for value, for relations, governance, exchange, etc. every human being has valuable insights into this situation, everyone who thinks and feels has details, views, observations to contribute to modeling what is going on, from their vantage. what is required to do this is 'knowing your 1s and 0s' in terms of logic and probability, this allowing shared empirical reasoning where truth befits truth as shared structure and scaffolding in a hypothetical parallel modeling of this shared human condition; likewise, the truth of the billionaire and truth of the homeless, both of value. morality likewise, the human good that those with wealth do and those without, accounting for this, valuing it, establishing it as foundation, building upon such structure. (making it possible for thinkers to have sustainable employment for instance, versus viewing such modeling as without worth to others, think how this would have decimated previous generations, think-tankers would not be employed- they would be medicated, there would be no model for what is going on, and today, this is the extending situation into the future, an outdated and warped point-of-view that is inaccurate, the only guideposts available; unless people are willing to take on the situation and change it, transform it via shared action, work, support, within these terms) 12-A1A [M] 512-C1B [4] 35-NET [8]

1 0

"Reset Safari" doesn't really clean all the cookies of Safari web browser
by Klokanek 10 Jan '14

10 Jan '14

http://eldar.cz/kangaroo/binarni-sxizofrenie/apple-safari-cookies-clean.html bye, k. ----- "Reset Safari" doesn't really clean all the cookies of Safari web browser ========================================================================= "Caches - This folder has the potential to be a gold mine of historical data for the examiner. The contents include information of application usage, web sites visited, buddy lists, downloaded files, etc. The best general advice that can be given regarding this directory is explore. Look in the folders here and see how the information may apply to your specific case. Keep in mind that many folders here will remain even after an application has been removed from the system" --Ryan R. Kubasiak, Investgator - New York State Police: Macintosh Forensics // http://www.appleexaminer.com/Downloads/MacForensics.pdf Apple Safari web browser version 5 and higher started to have a new "privacy option" in a main menu, "Reset Safari". It's supposed to clean all the private data saved by the browser. Instead of that it's giving the user a false sense of privacy, because many other files survive on the computer's hard drive. Let's see, how precise is Safari when cleaning cookies Reset Safari... --> Remove all cookies. Done. But something resides in ~/Library/Safari/LocalStorage still: cd ~/Library/Safari/LocalStorage ls http_www.youtube.com_0.localstorage https_www.facebook.com_0.localstorage ... [and hunderds of others] whats inside? sqlite3 http_www.youtube.com_0.localstorage .dump BEGIN TRANSACTION; CREATE TABLE ItemTable (key TEXT UNIQUE ON CONFLICT REPLACE, value TEXT NOT NULL ON CONFLICT FAIL); INSERT INTO "ItemTable" VALUES('yt-remote-device-id','{"data":"ef1e670e-d0ff-4ac2-a4ec-ea7b1f91b6f4","expiration":1396358291019,"creation":1364822291019}'); INSERT INTO "ItemTable" VALUES('cu-done','{"data":"true","expiration":1384738700399,"creation":1382060300400}'); INSERT INTO "ItemTable" VALUES('aid::oa39bdt6ZKAF5L3hdJEbOw','{"data":{"channel":"oa39bdt6ZKAF5L3hdJEbOw","aid":"P-kM2wl4AcM","origin":"AD_VIEW"},"expiration":1383696461512,"creation":1383091661512}'); INSERT INTO "ItemTable" VALUES('aid::6E_87l8TH6Q9OwX2N1ikZA','{"data":{"channel":"6E_87l8TH6Q9OwX2N1ikZA","aid":"P6Q1Jmt-VRA","origin":"AD_VIEW"},"expiration":1383698806856,"creation":1383094006856}'); INSERT INTO "ItemTable" VALUES('aid::bounded-collectable-storage','{"data":["fehakku7t4FXozPO-UPNwQ","P7o4B-EdYBRetrs-74SvkQ","SVYixA33WdNBOX_Huv89cQ","oa39bdt6ZKAF5L3hdJEbOw","6E_87l8TH6Q9OwX2N1ikZA","MAKFkooFBHOZnbF5zim-vA"],"creation":1383097633307}'); INSERT INTO "ItemTable" VALUES('history_channel_::MAKFkooFBHOZnbF5zim-vA','{"data":"20131030:a","expiration":1383702433304,"creation":1383097633304}'); INSERT INTO "ItemTable" VALUES('aid::MAKFkooFBHOZnbF5zim-vA','{"data":{"channel":"MAKFkooFBHOZnbF5zim-vA","aid":"P9jo8l6hThA","origin":"AD_VIEW"},"expiration":1383702433307,"creation":1383097633307}'); INSERT INTO "ItemTable" VALUES('history_channel_::bounded-collectable-storage','{"data":["SVYixA33WdNBOX_Huv89cQ","Ro_cfj3eVyJFMfzLAcVUOQ","MAKFkooFBHOZnbF5zim-vA"],"creation":1383097633305}'); INSERT INTO "ItemTable" VALUES('context-PSAOXkf0-oU','{"data":"{\"clickindex\":0,\"items\":[{\"type\":\"video\",\"id\":\"PSAOXkf0-oU\",\"time\":\"1:39\",\"title\":\"\\\"The Hobbit\\\" Couch Gag from \\\"4 Regrettings and A Funeral\\\" | THE SIMPSONS | ANIMATION on FOX\",\"user\":\"Animation Domination\",\"views\":\"5,283,212 views\"},{\"type\":\"video\",\"id\":\"nIsCs9_-LP8\",\"time\":\"2:13\",\"title\":\"Emotional baby! Too cute!\",\"user\":\"Alain Leroux\",\"views\":\"20,588,479 views\"},{\"type\":\"video\",\"id\":\"Ts-DW4_aSYI\",\"time\":\"1:53\",\"title\":\"Browse the web with elinks\",\"user\":\"JWAGVideo\",\"views\":\"2,277 etc.... Another place where unknown content resides is Adobe Flash's LSO cookie cache, located at: ~/Library/Caches/Adobe/Flash Player/ // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_shared_object The most interesting is this file: ~/Library/Caches/Metadata/Safari/History/.tracked\ filenames.plist Suspicious is especially the fact, the file is hidden (starting with a dot) and saved in 'History folder', bypassing probably "Clean Cookies.." function. Some users have met this under unknown conditions. The puropose of this file is still not well known. // http://hintsforums.macworld.com/showthread.php?t=144954 If you get it, analyze! solution: setup shell script (example): #/bin/sh echo "cleaning out safari's shit..."; # initial curiousity. # if ls "~/Library/Caches/Metadata/Safari/History/.tracked\ filenames.plist"; then echo "HOOOOORRAAAY! You won a jackpot!" read -p "Press [Enter] key to delete all, [CTRL+C] to examine..." fi # using tool srm from ports instead of rm, to wipe the files in more safe # way # if you don't have srm, use rm, but be aware that the files could be # recovered # flash is keeping it's own LSO cookies, independently srm -rsv "~/Library/Caches/Adobe/Flash Player/" # cache contains Webpage previews, for example screenshots of your webmail # account you just logged out from srm -rsv "~/Library/Caches/com.apple.Safari/" # clean them all, god will sort them out # maybe you will need a more gentle setting, i'm just rough and don't need # Safari's bookmarks srm -rsv "~/Library/Safari/" # depending on the version, you also have to wipe out this folder # for sure # explore by yourself and check for opened (using 'lsof' tool) http://hintsforums.macworld.com/showthread.php?t=144954and changed files srm -rsv "~/Library/Caches/Metadata/Safari/" # official place where cookies are stored in srm -rsv "~/Library/Cookies/" # quicktime is during the Internet usage also storing some "caches" srm -rsv "~/Library/Caches/QuickTime/downloads/" # to get another false security feeling echo "...clean!"; # go through cache files of your favourite application as well. # skype is also storing quite a lot you can run this script on regular basis by cron or by hand after finishing the work and leaving the computer for example, or on logout etc.... Safer with Safari Application quit. It's like cleaning the hands. You wash them after touching something rotten. And you clean them before touching something clean. EOF Comments requested

3 4

Swartz, Weev & radical libertarian lexicon (Re: Jacob Appelbaum in Germany - Aaron Swartz)
by Jim Bell 10 Jan '14

10 Jan '14

From: rysiek <rysiek(a)hackerspace.pl> To: cypherpunks(a)cpunks.org Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2014 10:51 AM Subject: Re: Swartz, Weev & radical libertarian lexicon (Re: Jacob Appelbaum in Germany - Aaron Swartz) Dnia wtorek, 7 stycznia 2014 19:36:44 Cari Machet pisze: > umn i just met u at #30c3 i know who u r so... aaahhh memories... > names .... ppl... buses ... berlin... i was making a little joke and > calling u poland sorry i happen to love poland generally so i like to > talk about it i guess AAAAHH! Now I got all the puzzles in my view. OHAI, CARI. :) /me facepalms hard/ >> how do you conclude that aaron was not "hacking" PLEASE EXPLAIN ??????? >Well... There are two ways the word "hacking" is used most often. >1. breaking into computer systems and generally doing some computery-evil stuff >2. doing some amazing technical things When I arrived at MIT in 1976, I learned that the term "hacker" meant ONLY the second definition above. (I believe the term originated at the TMRC (Tech Model Railroad Club in the 1950's; that fact is probably in Wikipedia) There was no hint of illegality, nor was the term in any way limited to computer activities. I would have been called a "chemistry hacker" or an "electronics hacker" at that point. I (and many, many other people, no doubt) were peeved that the first definition above came into vogue. The term "cracker" constituted an attempt to limit the misuse of "hacker". Jim Bell

3 2

Omidyar-Greenwald Scam to Sell Crypto?
by John Young 10 Jan '14

10 Jan '14

Pierre Omidyar's Business Model for First Look is Like a Second Life or Anti-Virus Guard Scam http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2014/01/pierre-omidyars-business-m…

2 1

Re: Jacob Appelbaum in Germany
by Bill Stewart 10 Jan '14

10 Jan '14

At 05:16 PM 1/8/2014, coderman wrote: >in the US court system, is there an equivalent of jury nullification >applied to a judicial ruling? > >that is to say: is it possible to plead guilty, but a judge acting to >nullify a perceived unjust law, could find you not guilty? A judge who wanted to do that could dismiss the case instead of asking for a plea. IANAL, but I suspect that a judge who allows a case to get as far as asking the defendents how they plead isn't going to reject a guilty plea. Another way to do what the Quakers wanted to do would have been to plead "no contest" instead of guilty, but I'm sure they had deeply considered what to do beforehand.

2 1