1997-08-20 - Re: The Real Bell Issue / Re: Bell, etc

Header Data

From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 3843386275948652d67e66093e5e65b9df3e8e51bb85c35c2d04cea108852e28
Message ID: <199708200700.JAA25135@basement.replay.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-08-20 07:14:49 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 15:14:49 +0800

Raw message

From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 15:14:49 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The Real Bell Issue / Re: Bell, etc
Message-ID: <199708200700.JAA25135@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Duncan Frissell wrote:

> He could have been aggressive and fought instead of wimping out.  Lots of
> people have faced much more serious crimes and won.  It's not like Jim had
> anything better to do.

  The fact of the matter is, none of us know what Jim knows, and what
he knows is likely only what his government appointed schill has told
him. I recall Vin Suprynowicz mentioning a prominent attorney contacting
Bell's attorney in an effort to help, and receiving no reply.
  Neither do we know if Bell has merely decided that he should concede
the legal ground in order to be able to pursue the issue later, on
turf that suits him better.
> In such cases, an aggressive show of strength of character is best.  Weakness
> invites oppression. 

  We have already seen the results of Tim McVeigh wanting his government
schill replaced--a big FUCK YOU.
  McVeigh's problem is not weakness, but lack of knowledge about the
legal system and the quality of his legal representation. Unfortunately,
I have no doubt that the government already has lawyers in place whose
job thus far has been to gain McVeigh's trust, so that they can screw
up his appeals, as well.