From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 07:54:59 +0800
To: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Leahy bill nightmare scenario?
In-Reply-To: <m0twYl5-00090jC@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960313144443.8242A-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 12 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 09:09 PM 3/11/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:
> 
> >Yes, I read Junger's analysis. A nice analysis. What does this have to do
> >with the points I was making? I'm a government stooge, to use your terms,
> >because of my points about hotel rooms?
> 
> Fortunately for me, Tim, and unfortunately for you, a friend of mine visited 
> me last night, an ex-cop who is now a cabbie (he left the force due to an 
> accident, slipping on glare ice chasing a "perp", which caused an inoperable 
> back injury).  Being a cabbie (in the same town he was a cop), and very 
> familiar with the "drug" and "prostitute" sections of town, I asked him 
> whether or not he was aware of a hotel or motel ever being siezed by the 
> govt. for "tolerating" drugs and/or prostitution.
> 
> His reply was that as we speak, he knows exactly where a motel has been 
> closed, locked up, and BARRICADED with _city_ signs and POLICE TAPE (you 
> know the kind, "Police line:  Do not cross.").  We're not talking of a 
> bankrupty, or a voluntary shutdown, either.  His understanding was that this 
> was on the news a while back.  Would you like the name and address?  I 
> didn't ask him for it, but I'm sure he'll be driving by it again 
> within the next week or so.

This is getting out of hand.

There's a distinct difference between tolerating prostitution and 
actively supporting it.

Your example lacks facts (as usual) which I'm sure you will fill in at 
your next opportunity with a load of dung you pull out of the air.

In the event a hotel knowingly supported prostitution, charged by the 
hour only to prostitutes, paid off police to avoid their notice, was 
owned by those connected with the illegal enterprise of prostitution and 
otherwise supported an ongoing criminal enterprise actively and 
directly, of course it will be seized.  This, as far as I can tell, has 
almost nothing to do with Mr. May's example which proffered a passive 
role, a tacid understanding and looking the other way by the hotel 
management.  A judge who upheld such a seziure would be asked, probably 
less politely than my last example, to leave the bench.  That a hotel is 
being seized, absent any showing of reason or circumstance, has so little 
to do with this point as to be amusing.  I cannot say, however, that I am 
surprised.

If there is enough interest, outside of you Mr. Bell, I will post a 
summary of asset forfeiture requirements under RICO and common law to the 
list.

Mr. Bell, your chronic out of context examples, stuffing of words into 
other peoples mouths (or posts), ignorance, and flatulant expositions 
have easily qualified you, in my book, as the most annoying and useless 
poster on the list.

> I accept your anticipated apology, Tim.

I have a feeling, not to speak for Mr. May, that you have a long wait.

> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com

---
My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information