Re: denial of service and government rights

This thread is probably already due for a change in
the Subject line, but I'll leave it untouched for 
the moment.

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". 
> 
> It is true of computers.
> Take the case of Ripco (the Chicago BBS raided in the 
> SunDevil raids back when).
> 
> I don't think "Dr. Ripco" has yet gotten his equipment 
> back.  I don't know for sure, but what I do know is 
> that 5 years after the raid, he still had certainly 
> not gotten anything back.
[....] 
> Recall also that Ripco was never specifically charged 
> (or the minor charges that they did try to pin didn't 
> stick).
> 
> Also recall that Ripco (now ripco.com) was raided with a
> -sealed- warrant. I dont think that the contents of that 
> warrant have, even today, been released (though I could 
> be mistaken).  Certainly 5 years after they had not.

[....]
> > But there's a big difference between "seizure" and 
> > "forfeiture".
> 
> I'd argue with computer hardware it is a distinction 
> without a difference. Seizing computer hardware (like 
> Ripco's stuff) for in excess of 5 years is tantamount
> to forfeiture given depreciation and so forth.
> 
> Add to this the very liberal rules about how long the 
> feds can take to even CHARGE you with a crime after 
> seizure....

And it sums to a very bleak picture, indeed.

[....]
> > So yes, there may be a statute which gives title to
> > the government in computers used to commit crimes, 
> > and no, the Supreme Court won't necessarily care 
> > about an "innocent owner".
> 
> Again, I would argue that such a statute needn't even 
> exist given the rules already well estlablished and 
> demonstrated in action with regard to indefinate 
> seizure of computer hardware even in the absence of 
> criminal claims against the owner.

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)??


Tired Fighter

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.

you were speaking of human rights, and the issue of Bush being Knighted 
... just out of curiousity, why is it against the constitution for Bush 
to be Knighted??

Thanks

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:

> 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

Unfortunatly, the law doesn't say that the government _must_ prosecute,
only that it can.

> 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.

This is not a violation of the Constitution.  The Constitution specifies
that US civil servants (or whatever we intend to call them these days)
cannot be knighted by a foreign country for services rendered to that
country.  So it would be [possibly] illegal for them to have been knighted
by Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, but not illegal (in this instance) for them to
be knighted by 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.

Good point.

 --Deviant
   PGP KeyID = E820F015 Fingerprint = 3D6AAB628E3DFAA9 F7D35736ABC56D39

You know you've been spending too much time on the computer when your
friend misdates a check, and you suggest adding a "++" to fix it.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMqGTTTCdEh3oIPAVAQElTgf+Mcq1JyTfXTCH+cTNZ7oix1plkL3fiFNG
Zl1Is0L2es3RuXd8IybY3M2GKa+8smph9xejl4z5slCG2k0Geb1NfbluckpAVY6T
xE+QwxNtF7UVLhqaOCuB1b7jtMRAlOyucwrjrVb0D0N1BiPQJb9zroVSmh0Pp2Ry
uFog0kbn1Ox8HTmjzxu5KEOYNvHX2DK1tQG6FmhdhChoprWGutjvwULvW5I+WOKT
TLDfzLbpRYsJNQDbB4F8W64fI+kNTJxqONMac8FryOEXMhfNFAg+xXrXZoKA7o1X
VuoKy7ZyFaYXbBHbaUlxVFU/KKrU9XbRPvL6YU7W3zo1AJo2MBLoCQ==
=mI5X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, Anonymous wrote:

> > Again, I would argue that such a statute needn't even 
> > exist given the rules already well estlablished and 
> > demonstrated in action with regard to indefinate 
> > seizure of computer hardware even in the absence of 
> > criminal claims against the owner.
> 
> 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)??

Of course you can fight a seizure, and try to compell them to return your
property.  About all they have to say to get a judge to look at you like
you're crazy is "Your Honor, this is material evidence being used in the
ongoing investigation of a crime.  We can't simply hand it back and try
and rent time with it to do our forensics tests...."


--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key   Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist         Switzerland