1998-09-21 - Re: This is a listed crime?

Header Data

From: attila <attila@hun.org>
To: Jim Choate <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Message Hash: 4670cffeee2c57b73e3561c5e8baf62fa906d1e1bc08d667e36e52e9eda2c6ae
Message ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980921165825.397U-100000@hun.org>
Reply To: <199809211700.MAA17197@einstein.ssz.com>
UTC Datetime: 1998-09-21 04:57:54 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:57:54 +0800

Raw message

From: attila <attila@hun.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:57:54 +0800
To: Jim Choate <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: This is a listed crime?
In-Reply-To: <199809211700.MAA17197@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980921165825.397U-100000@hun.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 21 Sep 1998, Jim Choate wrote:

>>   dont want to take the time to look up the 18 USC reference, but
>>   providing deliberately false information to _any_ federal agent 
>>   is a felony--  that includes the IRS. if nothing else, such as
>>   telling a federal agent to fuck-off, they will charge you with
>>   obstruction of justice.
>The trick is to tell them you are using your Constitutional right to refuse
>to answer under the 5th. At that point they can arrest you, and you get
>protection via a lawyer and the other processes, or they can go away. If
>after this responce they continue to ask you question they are in fact
>harassing you and you can press charges for that.
    agreed, in theory. but how do you protect yourself when two or more
    take the stand and swear under oath that you said: "......" or, even:
    "I dont know nuthin' 'bout it" --which has already been interpreted
    to a lie it can be proved to a material witness, etc.
    dealing with the Feds is very similiar to the pecking order of traffic
    which was suggest to me once in Zuerich:
    presume the man with a badge and a gun is a native. the burden of
    proof is on you that an agent of our honest, democratically elected
    government is harassing you. I have seen clear evidence of wiretapping
    presented, the judge called two gestapos to the stand, and asked them
    point blank: "did you wiretap [authorized or unauthoized], or were 
    you aware of a wiretap; or did you receive reliable or unreliable
    information which might have been only obtainable by wiretap or
    bugging?" and watch both agents straight face lie --one going so
    far as to say: "no, your Honor, that would be against the law.
    in the same vein of evidence: why do "officers of the law" carry an
    extra Saturday Night Special? --in case they drop someone, they can
    justify their assassination on the basis the deceased was armed and
    dangerous; or, why does a wanted poster for a meek bean counter who
    disappeared after touching his employer say: "presume armed and 
    dangerous"? --covers LEOs if they drop the miscreant on sight.
    the intent of the laws should be evident to everyone. the reality of
    the laws is the rules of evidence are heavily loaded in favour of
    the armed and dangerous officers sworn to uphold the law --as they
    see fit. a little old lady who only walks to the store and to church
    can be busted for something --be creative.
    the U.S. legal system has been distorted to the point it could
    easily be considered the enforcement arm of a totalitarian state.
    I do consider we have had a valid government since 08 Mar 1933 when
    FDR, 4 days after his inaugeration hoodwinked Congress into make
    'us' the enemy in the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, validating
    the executive order, and declaring a national emergency. all three
    actions still stand -the national emergency continues.
    the American theory is wonderful; the American experience not always
    so wonderful.

Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be.
Charset: noconv