Re: 'Jury Booty' and Anti-prosecution tactics. (Was Re:)

newer
Re: [Cryptography] Boing Boing...

older
fuzzing at scale

Bill Stewart

13 Jan 2014 13 Jan '14

1:46 a.m.

At 05:02 PM 1/12/2014, Jim Bell wrote:

...

... Authorities, no doubt, would want to label this 'jury tampering'. http:///http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_tampering However, it is likely that if no actual 'offer' is made to a specific juror, and 'everybody' simply KNOWS that these payments will occur (due to prior advertising and other publicity, and because other jurors have always been paid in the past), this should not run afoul of such laws.

Of *course* they'd want to label it 'jury tampering', because it *is* jury tampering. It's an offer to bribe the jurors to acquit somebody they might otherwise convict. It directly runs afoul of jury tampering laws, and the only difference from traditional jury tampering is that it *might* be easier not to get caught. I do prefer it to some other traditional kinds of jury tampering, including the one where the government only allows prosecution-friendly jurors, and the one where the payment for acquittal is "not getting your legs broken". (The latter, btw, also has some anonymity built into the payment mechanism, since it's easy to deliver the payment anonymously to jurors who accept.) But they're all perversions of justice.

Show replies by date

Jim Bell

13 Jan 13 Jan

5:25 a.m.

New subject: 'Jury Booty' and Anti-prosecution tactics. (Was Re:)

Yahoo's email editor is FUCKED!! Jim Bell From: Bill Stewart At 05:02 PM 1/12/2014, Jim Bell wrote:

...

...
... Authorities, no doubt, would want to label this 'jury tampering'. http:///http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_tampering However, it is likely that if no actual 'offer' is made to a specific juror, and 'everybody' simply KNOWS that these payments will occur (due to prior advertising and other publicity, and because other jurors have always been paid in the past), this should not run afoul of such laws.

...

Of *course* they'd want to label it 'jury tampering', because it *is* jury tampering.

The exact wording of the laws is important. A given state's law may refer to 'during a trial', a factor which need not be present in a hypothetical case.

...

It's an offer to bribe the jurors to acquit somebody they might otherwise convict.

Strictly speaking, it would be a statement that they WILL make a payment, NOT that they 'offer' to do so. The exact wording of the laws is important. Moreover, TIMING is important as well. See the following case: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/federal_judge_tosses_tampering_charge... That was a jury-nullification leafletting case. "U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood said the tampering statute was aimed at people who try to influence a decision in a specific case, the New York Times reports. The defendant, 80-year-old Julian Heicklen, was arrested for passing out brochures advocating the idea that jurors can acquit defendants if they disagree with the laws used to prosecute them.According to the Times, Wood avoided a First Amendment ruling by basing her decision on the reach of the statute. But an Associated Press story says Wood mentioned the First Amendment in her decision, saying it protects speech concerning judicial proceedings as long as the speech doesn’t prevent fair and impartial justice". http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-def... I have read some jury tampering decisions which quote laws which prohibit such offers DURING a trial, not days, weeks, months, or even years ahead of time. What I was referring to was a practice where it would become generally know, months or even years in advance, that such a payment would be made. This is NOT the heartland of a 'jury tampering' case. Also, http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-def...

...

It directly runs afoul of jury tampering laws, and the only difference from traditional jury tampering is that it *might* be easier not to get caught.

Also, see the 1969 Supreme Court case, Brandenburg v. Ohio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._ohio The SC ruled that mere advocacy of a future criminal action (not 'imminent lawless action', as in a riot situation) is 'protected speech' under the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution. See also: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/LegalEthics/JuryTampering.htm

...

I do prefer it to some other traditional kinds of jury tampering, including the one where the government only allows prosecution-friendly jurors, and the one where the payment for acquittal is "not getting your legs broken". (The latter, btw, also has some anonymity built into the payment mechanism, since it's easy to deliver the payment anonymously to jurors who accept.) But they're all perversions of justice.

I view existing 'justice' as being entirely perverted, already. See http://definitions.uslegal.com/j/jury-tampering/ In any case, I did not publicize these actions with the intent that somebody rush out and do it, without further legal research. Obviously, individual states' laws should be checked. And, if necessary, a lawsuit can be brought, alleging that the complainant wishes to commence a given course of action, and challenging the government to prove that this action is necessarily illegal. I suspect that if no direct contact with individual jurors occurs, and this is part of a long-standing campaign over a period of months or years, this cannot be described as 'jury tampering' within the meaning of current laws. Jim Bell

grarpamp

14 Jan 14 Jan

6:14 a.m.

New subject: 'Jury Booty' and Anti-prosecution tactics. (Was Re:)

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Jim Bell wrote:

...

Yahoo's email editor is FUCKED!!

So are all the big ones... gmail, yahoo, microsoft, etc. Just find a client you like and bypass the webmail part... Incoming Mail (IMAP) Server - Requires SSL Server: imap.mail.yahoo.com Port: 993 Requires SSL: Yes Outgoing Mail (SMTP) Server - Requires TLS Server: smtp.mail.yahoo.com Port: 465 or 587 Requires SSL: Yes Requires authentication: Yes Login info - Requires authentication Email address: Your full email address (name@domain.com.) Password: Your account's password.

Troy Benjegerdes

13 Jan 13 Jan

8:37 p.m.

New subject: 'Jury Booty' and Anti-prosecution tactics. (Was Re:)

On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 05:46:20PM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:

...

At 05:02 PM 1/12/2014, Jim Bell wrote:

...
... Authorities, no doubt, would want to label this 'jury tampering'. http:///http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_tampering However, it is likely that if no actual 'offer' is made to a specific juror, and 'everybody' simply KNOWS that these payments will occur (due to prior advertising and other publicity, and because other jurors have always been paid in the past), this should not run afoul of such laws.

Of *course* they'd want to label it 'jury tampering', because it *is* jury tampering. It's an offer to bribe the jurors to acquit somebody they might otherwise convict. It directly runs afoul of jury tampering laws, and the only difference from traditional jury tampering is that it *might* be easier not to get caught.

I do prefer it to some other traditional kinds of jury tampering, including the one where the government only allows prosecution-friendly jurors, and the one where the payment for acquittal is "not getting your legs broken". (The latter, btw, also has some anonymity built into the payment mechanism, since it's easy to deliver the payment anonymously to jurors who accept.) But they're all perversions of justice.

I think some sort of "fund the campaign of the first politician to succeed in making said illegal behavior legal" is far more likely to have the desired results. I would argue that politicians are far more predictable than jurors, and then it's pretty clear you are making a free speech/change the law payout, rather than do something most people would think is shady. (Okay, most people think buying politicians is shady, but that feels like a much easier public relations game to win than bribing jurors) Anonymity is expensive, and if you can change the game to do what you wish publicly, and transparently, I expect it will cost a heck of a lot less per successful outcome. Lots of lawyers will publicly advertise services for campaign engineering. Very few will *publicly* advertise services for jury tampering.

John Young

9:39 p.m.

New subject: 'Jury Booty' and Anti-prosecution tactics. (Was Re:)

Maybe Tim May is channeling me, but this talk of messing with authorities on cypherpunks smells like list tampering to bait and ensare really dumb newbies. Playing games is fine, but running entrapments is against the house rules. That was encouraged in days of old and got jail sentences for susceptibles. Since then agent provocateurs, turn-coats and informants have become a nice-paying online industry and handsome budget inflators for the feds. And has bagged a wad of hackers, daring coders and alleged accomplices, among them: Jim Bell Carl Johnson Aaron Swartz Chelsea Manning Julian Assange Edward Snowden Gottfrid Warg Rop Gonggrijp Brigitta Jonsdottir Jacob Appelbaum Hector Monsegur Jake Davis Ryan Cleary Ryan Ackroyd Darren Martyn Donncha O'Cearrbhail Mustafa al-Bassam Jeremy Hammond Christopher Cooper Joshua Covelli Raynaldo Rivera Cody Kretsinger Lauri Love Neal Rauhauser Keith Downey Mercedes Haefer Donald Husband Ethan Miles James Murphy Drew Phillips Jeffrey Puglisi Daniel Sullivan Tracy Valenzuela Christopher Vo Barrett Brown Ross Ulbricht Andrew Jones Gary Davis Peter Phillip Nash Vladimir Drinkman Aleksandr Kalinin Roman Kotov Dmitriy Smilianets Mikhail Rytikov These are in last few years. Many more in the years before that, some after prison becoming security peddlers, journalists, hacker organizers and for the rest of their lives rats or sent back into the pokey. At least consider being bit more discreet, assholes, and in spare time read Gentlepersons Guide to Forum Spies: http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

Jim Bell

11:47 p.m.

New subject: anti-prosecution tactics. (Was Re:)

John, I don't discourage your comments such as this. Caution must always be employed. But as Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". Cypherpunks sometimes talk about 'scary' subjects. Imagine if, hypothetically, Phil Zimmerman (who created PGP) had been a Cypherpunk list member in, say, 1990. (Yes, I know the list didn't exist until 1992...) Suppose he had said, "Gee, somebody could write a program using RSA algorithms, that even the NSA couldn't crack!" <insert Beavis and Butthead laughter.> Then, another list member could say, "Well, somebody else could post it on a U.S. website, and it could be downloaded by a person in a foreign country!" <insert more Beavis and Butthead laughter> And a third listmember could chime in: "And thereby crypto could be exported, ILLEGALLY, and nobody would know who did it!" <insert still more Beavis and Butthead laughter>. Similar kinds of discussions could be imagined about the development of thwarting the Clipper chip, imagining AP or (now) 'Sanjuro's 'AM', designing Bitcoin, or about setting up a Silk Road-type website, or anything else that somebody might consider provocative. All of the persons reading the CP list need to learn about the 1969 Supreme Court case, Brandenburg v. Ohio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._ohio Text of that case at: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/case.html Talking about a crime, and even openly advocating its commission (with the exception of 'imminent lawless action') is generally considered protected by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That said, I generally make it a rule not to "openly advocate the commission of a crime", mostly because government investigators and even prosecutors may not be aware of the rights described in the Brandenburg case: Or, a prosecutor may PRETEND to not realize that such open advocacy is not, in itself, beyond 1st Amendment protection, at least not until he has already obtained a search warrant, investigators have planted evidence, made an arrest, etc. But, over time, I believe that we (and all other citizens) should come to regularly use all the Constitutional protections we have, in part to ensure that some of us aren't victimized by using a seldom-used right. Jim Bell For a comedic take on this theme, see: http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/12/nsa-anti-surveillance-suggestion-operati “Operation Everyone Talk Like a Terrorist All the Time” ---------------------- From: John Young To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 1:39 PM Subject: Re: 'Jury Booty' and Anti-prosecution tactics. (Was Re:) Maybe Tim May is channeling me, but this talk of messing with authorities on cypherpunks smells like list tampering to bait and ensare really dumb newbies. Playing games is fine, but running entrapments is against the house rules. That was encouraged in days of old and got jail sentences for susceptibles. Since then agent provocateurs, turn-coats and informants have become a nice-paying online industry and handsome budget inflators for the feds. And has bagged a wad of hackers, daring coders and alleged accomplices, among them: Jim Bell Carl Johnson Aaron Swartz Chelsea Manning Julian Assange Edward Snowden Gottfrid Warg Rop Gonggrijp Brigitta Jonsdottir Jacob Appelbaum Hector Monsegur Jake Davis Ryan Cleary Ryan Ackroyd Darren Martyn Donncha O'Cearrbhail Mustafa al-Bassam Jeremy Hammond Christopher Cooper Joshua Covelli Raynaldo Rivera Cody Kretsinger Lauri Love Neal Rauhauser Keith Downey Mercedes Haefer Donald Husband Ethan Miles James Murphy Drew Phillips Jeffrey Puglisi Daniel Sullivan Tracy Valenzuela Christopher Vo Barrett Brown Ross Ulbricht Andrew Jones Gary Davis Peter Phillip Nash Vladimir Drinkman Aleksandr Kalinin Roman Kotov Dmitriy Smilianets Mikhail Rytikov These are in last few years. Many more in the years before that, some after prison becoming security peddlers, journalists, hacker organizers and for the rest of their lives rats or sent back into the pokey. At least consider being bit more discreet, assholes, and in spare time read Gentlepersons Guide to Forum Spies: http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

coderman

14 Jan 14 Jan

12:35 a.m.

New subject: anti-prosecution tactics. (Was Re:)

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Jim Bell wrote:

...

John, I don't discourage your comments such as this. Caution must always be employed. But as Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". Cypherpunks sometimes talk about 'scary' subjects. . . . ---------------------- From: John Young To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 1:39 PM Subject: Re: 'Jury Booty' and Anti-prosecution tactics. (Was Re:)

Maybe Tim May is channeling me, but this talk of messing with authorities on cypherpunks smells like list tampering to bait and ensare really dumb newbies...

[teh dumbz] has bagged a wad of hackers, daring coders and alleged accomplices, among them:

[long list of your friends and [AS] neighbors]

At least consider being bit more discreet, assholes, and in spare time read Gentlepersons Guide to Forum Spies:

http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

using a genetic heuristic engine for pyramidal bayesian inference network classification i have determine that one of the following is likely true with respect to this thread and subject: a) JYA is being paid in laundered bitcoin for spreading FUD to cypherpunks and privacy technologists; CIA now embracing altcoins for darkops and payoffs. b) the emerging market for captured 0day is spilling over into overt baiting tactics in public places like our beloved listserv; elevated noise a signal for constructed focal points of interest tapping faux target treasures. c) because honeypots

Cari Machet

12:05 a.m.

New subject: 'Jury Booty' and Anti-prosecution tactics. (Was Re:)

Birgitta has not been bagged whatchumean ? her twitter case + social media judgement to unseal ? She is free to roam the globe ... others besides self imposed hype are not so put upon - the JA-JA's I think it lessens the acts of others to couple them together On 13.01.2014, at 22:39, John Young wrote:

...

Maybe Tim May is channeling me, but this talk of messing with authorities on cypherpunks smells like list tampering to bait and ensare really dumb newbies.

Playing games is fine, but running entrapments is against the house rules.

That was encouraged in days of old and got jail sentences for susceptibles. Since then agent provocateurs, turn-coats and informants have become a nice-paying online industry and handsome budget inflators for the feds.

And has bagged a wad of hackers, daring coders and alleged accomplices, among them:

Jim Bell Carl Johnson Aaron Swartz Chelsea Manning Julian Assange Edward Snowden Gottfrid Warg Rop Gonggrijp Brigitta Jonsdottir Jacob Appelbaum Hector Monsegur Jake Davis Ryan Cleary Ryan Ackroyd Darren Martyn Donncha O'Cearrbhail Mustafa al-Bassam Jeremy Hammond Christopher Cooper Joshua Covelli Raynaldo Rivera Cody Kretsinger Lauri Love Neal Rauhauser Keith Downey Mercedes Haefer Donald Husband Ethan Miles James Murphy Drew Phillips Jeffrey Puglisi Daniel Sullivan Tracy Valenzuela Christopher Vo Barrett Brown Ross Ulbricht Andrew Jones Gary Davis Peter Phillip Nash Vladimir Drinkman Aleksandr Kalinin Roman Kotov Dmitriy Smilianets Mikhail Rytikov

These are in last few years.

Many more in the years before that, some after prison becoming security peddlers, journalists, hacker organizers and for the rest of their lives rats or sent back into the pokey.

At least consider being bit more discreet, assholes, and in spare time read Gentlepersons Guide to Forum Spies:

http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

3902

Age (days ago)

3903

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

7 comments

7 participants

participants (7)

Bill Stewart
Cari Machet
coderman
grarpamp
Jim Bell
John Young
Troy Benjegerdes