CDR: Re: RC4 source as a literate program

[jim bell]

I can't fault the accuracy of your comment, Tim.  Interestingly enough,
however, the usual "it's who you know" seems to control what happens.  From
a Guest Editorial published today in the Oregonian newspaper by Elizabeth
Drew, author of the book "The Corruption of American Politics; What went
wrong and why."

"In 1996, Common Cause filed a complaint with the Justice Department.  It
maintained that the soft-money ads themselves violated the law and that
there was a clear pattern of coordination between the candidates campaigns
and the national committees.  Following the usual O.K. Corral scene at the
Justic Department, Attorney General Janet Reno--without investigating the
complaint--ruled that since the Clinton Campaign had consulted its lawyers,
no criminal intent was involved, and closed the case.  (FBI Director Louis
Freeh, Charles LaBella, Reno's chosen chief prosecutor for the campaign
finance task force, and others objected vehembently to this course of
nonaction.)  Reno bucked the issue over to the feckless Federal Elections
Commission, which did what it usually does:  nothing."  But before the FEC
buried the issue, its general counsel, Lawrence Noble, did find that party
ads violated election laws and recommended the campaigns repay millions of
dollars."     [end of quote]

The real  problem with the "I consulted my lawyer so there's no criminal
intent" is that government simply does not follow its own rules.  But I've
got a solution to that problem.

Jim Bell



----- Original Message -----
From: Tim May <tcmay at got.net>
To: <cypherpunks at cyberpass.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 15:34 PM
Subject: Re: RC4 source as a literate program


> At 1:28 PM -0500 9/5/00, Gary Jeffers wrote:
> >Fellow Cypherpunks,
> >
> >                     THE LAWYER GAMBIT
> >
> >   I remember reading in old anti-IRS literature about a technique for
> >avoiding prosecutions. A client would tell a lawyer that he wanted to
> >do something and would ask if it were legal to do. The lawyer would
> >then give his opinion as to wheather it was legal or not. If the lawyer
> >said that it was legal and gave his opinion in writing, then the
> >client could proceed without out worry. The lawyer's opinion would stop
> >any criminal prosecution.
>
> And the nitwits who believed this are now serving ten to twenty on
> income tax evasion charges.
>
> You really think that if I, for example, were to waste three years of
> my life getting a law degree and then passing the bar that my advice
> would absolve someone of criminal charges/