From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 14:06:28 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: I Got Mine
Message-ID: <199812030552.GAA30881@replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On marte, 01.12.1998, "Blanc" <blancw@cnw.com> wrote: 

> I received my visit from the friendly IRS guys tonight, asking 
> about CJ/Toto.

Pre-schoolers'R'Us. You got a visit from the advance guys.

> It seems that they had a copy of two emails...one of them the one 
> in which I chastized him for sending a threatening letter to Billg. 

Admissions, admissions.

Would some duly licensed bar attorney on this list PUH-LEEZE tell
these children how to behave in the presence of criminal inquisitors?

> They wanted to know about my associations with Toto (I still think 
> of him by that name), of course, of which I had none except through 
> email. 

So _you_ say! They open doors; you walk through them; you can easily 
find yourself in Wonderland. Don't come crying to _me_!

> In our conversation, 

There is no such thing as a "conversation" with them; there is 
only an "interrogation." Everything you say is interpreted as an 
admission, a denial, or an evasion. You are a perp. You are dogshit. 

> I discovered things that I didn't know about Toto's situation:

You mean you heard more _allegations_? 

If you're not careful, your neighbours will be the next ones to be
"discovering things we didn't know" about _you_. That's the way they
turn people against targets, and anyone they interview can become
another target in the blink of an eye.

> that he had sent threatening letters to the Mounties, 

Alleged, and only to _you_ as far as you know...

> and that he had threated to kill the judge trying Jim's case.

Alleged, and only to _you_ as far as you know...

> I'm afraid CJ really went over the edge here and backed himself up 
> in a corner. 

GodDAMN! I'm glad you're not a friend of mine! I don't know if I even
want to _know_ whether you're wearing panties or not anymore.

> I should have chastized him more severely and counseled him against 
> rash acts of unkindness (not that I hold myself responsible for what
> he did, but he did pay attention to me).

Geez! I wonder what you must gush up about your _enemies_!

> Kind of amusingly, one of them asked if CJ had ever asked me to join 
> the Circle of Eunuchs!  heh.

Yeah, that's funny. It should also have set off all your alarm bells
that you're dealing with clueless fuckwits who can't find their fly
without a map and whose only interest in life is putting anybody
they can in prison, on any excuse whatsoever. If they can weave 
together a Circle of Eunuchs or a Cult of the Kernel or a conspiracy 
of Fanatic Followers of the Seashell, they'll be content to do it. 
You could tell them that the leader of the militant arm of the Circle 
is the infamous but cryptic "General Error" and they'd write it down 
with a straight face.

To you, it's a joke. To them, it's a statement with possible 
evidentiary value. And nothing's funny.

> I explained that it was Toto's Art imitating Life, creating stories 

You don't explain _anything_ to them. You can only give them leads 
and evidence. Of course, if you *insist* on having such a fucking 
good memory and on gushing on about all sorts of things, well, don't 
be surprised if they conclude that you _do_ know a lot about this Toto 
stuff, after all, and maybe merit another, more probing interview.

> We had a bit of discussion on a number of things, 

I'll _bet_ you did! Sounds like you made a nearly _perfect_ subject 
for interrogation.

> including the subject of free speech and how close one can get to it 
> before being subject to arrest. 

Ooooooo! That sounds _delicious_! You can entertain attorneys with 
that one. You will be thrilled at the wondrous range of awful 
expressions they make. Some may even quietly throw up in a corner.

> I asked them what that crucial point was when this would happen, 
> since there is no crime until action is actually taken.

Shows how much _you_ know. 

And now you get your legal advice from the IRS CID? That's really 
bright.

> They said this would be when...
> I referenced as an example the web site...

Nice of them. Did they indemnify should you rely on their advice and 
get busted or sued? Didn't think so.

> One of the investigators also brought up the issue of...
> I remarked that one must always be prepared for the unexpected...
> they made some points about taking threats seriously...

"Hyperseriously" is more like it.

You're a regular motormouth, aren't you? Now they have you knowing
a lot more about Toto-ish things than just the email showed, they have 
you red-flagged as "attempting to draw the agent into arguments about 
law or the Constitution," they have you flagged as being way too 
bright for an innocent person, and demonstrating an interest in 
discussing the technicalities of the law on threats to public 
officials, which interest, just coincidentally, happens to dovetail 
quite nicely with the essential subject matter of their investigation. 
I'd give pretty good odds you're going to get another visit. If you 
don't have a lawyer present on the next one, I'd say you're, uh, 
sorry, there's just no other word: _stupid_.

> I asked if cypherpunks would actually be subpoenaed to appear at 
> CJ's trial. They said it depends on CJ: if he accepts a deal, he 
> would likely get a reduced sentence, but if he takes them to trial 
> then there could be quite a number of Cpunks called forth.

Ooooooo! Lovely! FUD! Big time FUD! Divide and conquer FUD! CJ becomes
the bad guy for not cutting a deal and instead inconveniencing all 
those busy Cpunks, all of them probably suddenly writing code instead 
of flaming each other in endless and pointless threads of non-crypto!

> I suggested if that happens we could all go out to dinner
> : ) and they thought this would be quite interesting. 

Of _course_ it would! More "conversation," leads, admissions,
denials and evasions! More grist for the mill! More perps! Get them
to pick up the tab -- they'll be able to put it on their expense
reports! It's called an informal group interrogation.

Geez, how can bright people be so fucking STUPID?

> One of the investigators expressed a great interest in the cpunk 
> dicussions and concepts; 

Doh! It's his _job_ to be interested in a subject matter touching on 
an active investigation.

> I described...I'm sure given a little time and several dinners we 
> could convert him to the Dark Side. <g>

Geez! Don't you realize that they _are_ the Dark Side! Have you been 
living under a rock for the last few decades?

"You know, Gunther, those Gestapo men who visited last night to ask 
about the Goldblums next door were very polite. One of them expressed 
great interest in concepts and discussions of Judaism, and Jewish 
family trees. I described something of what the religion is about and 
referred him to some libraries and gave him some titles to read. I'm 
sure, given a little time and several dinners, we could convert him to 
our side."

Right. Maybe you understand now why I'm not on the Cpunks list?

RabidFreedomMonger