1996-12-01 - Re: denial of service and government rights

Header Data

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 471f7d7ae249d5d145512d156312ca3becae4e73109c0fdaff965cba0d2d085b
Message ID: <32A1203E.502B@gte.net>
Reply To: <199612010552.XAA08222@mail.gte.net>
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-01 06:06:05 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 22:06:05 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 22:06:05 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: denial of service and government rights
In-Reply-To: <199612010552.XAA08222@mail.gte.net>
Message-ID: <32A1203E.502B@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Mail Delivery Subsystem wrote:
> ----- The following addresses had delivery problems -----
> <Tired.Fighter@dhp.com>  (unrecoverable error)
> 550 <Tired.Fighter@dhp.com>... User unknown

>    ----- Original message follows -----
> Tired.Fighter@dhp.com wrote:
> > On 30 Nov 96 at 13:10, Black Unicorn wrote:
> > > On Fri, 29 Nov 1996, Greg Broiles wrote:
> > > > I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be true for a
> > > > computer. Fed.Rul.Crim.Pro. 41(b)(1) allows the seizure
> > > > (but seizure is not forfeiture) of "property that
> > > > constitutes evidence of the commission of a
> > > > criminal offense".
> [snip]
> > Please forgive my naivete, but are there no legal
> > weapons available to the 'victims' in such cases?
> > I'm passingly familiar with the Operation Sundevil
> > fiasco -- i.e., with the outcome re the principal
> > 'charges'.  I'm appalled, however, at the apparent
> > lack of remedies for return of such seized property.
> > Are individuals who find themselves in such a
> > predicament simply at the government's mercy (there's
> > an oxymoron for ya)??
> Just in case someone replies saying "It's not all that bad", or "It can't
> happen here", etc., you should know this:
> The United States government has not been responsive to the people for
> a long time, but what's become evident in recent years is that they're
> also no longer responsive to basic law and order.
> They do respond to extreme pressure, as was applied in the Weaver, Waco,
> and other similar cases, but, as a general rule, they do whatever they
> want all the way to the top of the Justice dept. with impunity.
> Example:  George Bush's old pal at the Wash. DC P.R. firm hires the
> niece(?) of a Kuwaiti official to testify in front of Congress in full
> view of the American people on television, that the Iraquis were throwing
> babies out of incubators in Kuwait, thereby securing the necessary votes
> in Congress to prosecute the Gulf War.
> When it was discovered (after the "war") that the Incubator Baby Scandal
> was a lie, nobody was prosecuted.  Further, in blatant violation of the
> U.S. Constitution, Bush and Schwartzkopf were knighted by Queen Elizabeth
> II of England.
> There are also numerous examples of the Justice dept. being caught red-
> handed forging documents to frame people for whom they had no evidence or
> insufficient evidence to prosecute, and what happens in those cases?
> Nothing.