Re: The Science Generations, II

At 8:58 PM -0800 2/16/97, Steve Schear wrote:

>BTW, regarding the difficulty in obtaining chemical reagents (unless you're
>in a qualified educational program or professionally employed at a large
>industrial company), I came across a relatively new company targeting the
>amateur scientist, Chemical Resale of Santa Barbara
><http://www.sb.net/wirehead>.  It carries only a limited selection and
>prices seem very high (undoubtedly due to his small volume).

And as part of the "War on (Some) Drugs," many chemical purchases now
require licenses of various sorts. As a growing number of chemicals are
classified as "precursors" to a growing medicine cabinet full of
mind-altering or reality-enhancing recreational substances, this "chemical
escrow"  is a step in the direction of outlawing all cash commerce.

Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the
Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing
number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals
of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded,
True Names revealed, etc.?

(I believe this interpretation is incorrect. I believe "due process" means
that a court order, or specific enabling legislation (as for guns) must be
produced. If Alice sells something to Bob, having the government as a third
party is, I think, a violation of the Fourth. However, the "power to
regulate commerce" could be the root password, as national security often
is.)

I'm thinking about these issues because I'm working on a position paper for
Michael Froomkin's session at CFP. (Froomkin is one of the legal scholars
aruing that transactions may have no constitutional expectation of privacy.)

>Regarding amateur experiments with 'real' rockets, the Fed have passed a
>plethora of laws effectively resticting what non-governmental bodies may
>investigate.  See 14 CFR PART 101, 22 CFR Sec. 121.16 and 49 CFR Sec.
>173.88. I guess I can't play with matches anymore.  Thank you Congress.

Nor can you play with knives, by the way. I read rec.knives, and the
explosion of laws about how and where knives may be carried, used, owned,
bought, etc., and what blade shapes are allowed, what lengths are felonies
to possess, etc., is truly mind-numbing. I concluded that I'm committing
misdemeanors in nearly all counties I enter in California, and felonies in
some. All for possessing and/or carrying what I bought legally just a few
years ago.

This is the morass of laws into which we have sunk.

I suspect similar laws--regulating commerce, protecting children, disarming
bad guys, etc.--will be used soon enough on crypto.

--Tim May

Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Mr. May wrote:
> Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the
> Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing
> number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals
> of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded,
> True Names revealed, etc.?

	This is where I often get a little confused.

	Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that the
constitutuion was _not_ a document that explicitly spelled out what writes 
_I_ had, but rather spelled out fairly precisely what the _government_ was 
allowed to do.

	In otherwords, the Constitution does not restrict _me_ rather it 
restricts the _feds_ (and the Feds alone).

	My rights are WHATEVER ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the government
can only, ONLY do what the constitution says it can.

	???

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

snow <snow@smoke.suba.com> writes:
> Mr. May wrote:
> > Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the
> > Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing
> > number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals
> > of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded,
> > True Names revealed, etc.?
> 
>         This is where I often get a little confused.
> 
>         Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that the
> constitutuion was _not_ a document that explicitly spelled out what writes 
> _I_ had, but rather spelled out fairly precisely what the _government_ was 
> allowed to do.
> 
>         In otherwords, the Constitution does not restrict _me_ rather it 
> restricts the _feds_ (and the Feds alone).

You neglect things like the interstate commerce provision, which means
that if it crosses state lines, the feds can regualte it. In addition,
the court (in its infinite wisdom), decided that "the people" meant
the states, then the people. So, as long as it isn't meantioned in the
constitution, the states can do whatever they want.

Welcome to America, please stay in line.

Jer

"standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew
 why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole

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

iQB1AwUBMwjGzskz/YzIV3P5AQGKbAL+OA3vfIyutiHrnKXRaydKz0R9hhIinVV3
sSjacpA7MNDxH+bCQhDwqx2WRT89JjKK64nTw+4YF05h3pzl1IV3TD1WNDkt8UIe
5m8Y0LY1v2M5+dGq0ifpKicV8IUkvYar
=UsSo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Jeremiah A Blatz wrote:

> You neglect things like the interstate commerce provision, which means
> that if it crosses state lines, the feds can regualte it. In addition,
> the court (in its infinite wisdom), decided that "the people" meant
> the states, then the people. So, as long as it isn't meantioned in the
> constitution, the states can do whatever they want.

The 10th amendment states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or
to the people."

This sounds pretty clear to me.

Theoretically, the states can do whatever they want as long as they don't
infringe on the rights of the people.  The 9th amendment protects all rights
not explicitly stated in the constitution.  The 5th and 14th amendments both
protect people from losing life, liberty, or property without due process.  I
believe that the 14th was used as justification for Roe vs. Wade, since the
court decided that abortion is a liberty and any law forbidding it deprives a
woman of liberty without due process.

Of course, in practice, we know that the situation is much different...


Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBMwkjwSzIPc7jvyFpAQE9QwgAj+op9T6AT858eS89RyAiYnwP02APgr3I
1ZkguMV5JiJWOKrhXu54/k7sVam4sxCftvC3Poon9K4yCQ+rtTUL3bF81+ppdXMr
cCfEMU5RNZVDU5sddR5nWkOHagXFatSYK6v7IUqYfquWgq1/9m6NQIO25+RleHmv
nz9ZjaeWdljPx0SWjg77Ul8/8fJkNn/sHn3rTBUdNeGBLkipAY82vv4hZFC2A8uf
zAjbD+GEYl4Vbu+GpOPkb+RDkECZ762zVQ2DX4yHeGq58Ejs/a4+XHXT6MqYs8Xy
phnluL347m/OrDCPekCT4nOgt0zHGoDQ8PYinxbDUjxLHC7rOzKe9g==
=5iIy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 1:22 PM -0600 2/17/97, snow wrote:
>Mr. May wrote:
>> Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the
>> Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing
>> number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals
>> of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded,
>> True Names revealed, etc.?
>
>	This is where I often get a little confused.
>
>	Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that the
>constitutuion was _not_ a document that explicitly spelled out what writes
>_I_ had, but rather spelled out fairly precisely what the _government_ was
>allowed to do.
>
>	In otherwords, the Constitution does not restrict _me_ rather it
>restricts the _feds_ (and the Feds alone).
>
>	My rights are WHATEVER ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the government
>can only, ONLY do what the constitution says it can.
>
>	???

But why do you not object that the "right to free speech," "the right to
keep and bear arms," and so on, are specifically enumeratedin the Bill of
Rights? The privacy issue is that there is no such enumeration of a right
to privacy in the Bill of Rights, though many think it to be implicit in
some of the other enumerated rights, e.g,, the Fourth, and even in the
First.

Constitutional issues are not easily discussed in short messages like this.
Suffice it to say the issue of whether a "right to privacy" exists has been
long discussed, most recently by Bork, Posner, and others (I skimmed the
latest Posner book a while back, and liked his style).

The issue hit when abortion advocates argued that a "woman's right to
privacy" allowed abortions. However, none of the enumerated rights made
this obvious. Bork has opined that no right to privacy can be inferred from
the Constitution.

(And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy" argument for abortion
was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't infanticide be equally
protected by a woman's right to privacy?)

--Tim May



Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Mr. may wrote:
> At 1:22 PM -0600 2/17/97, snow wrote:
> >	My rights are WHATEVER ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the government
> >can only, ONLY do what the constitution says it can.
> But why do you not object that the "right to free speech," "the right to
> keep and bear arms," and so on, are specifically enumeratedin the Bill of
> Rights? The privacy issue is that there is no such enumeration of a right
> to privacy in the Bill of Rights, though many think it to be implicit in
> some of the other enumerated rights, e.g,, the Fourth, and even in the
> First.

Amendment X-

(1791) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to 
the people.

	As far as my reading goes, the Constitution (of which the BoR is a 
portion, IIR my "civics" (more like uncivics) classes properly) doesn't give 
the Feds the right to invade my privacy, and although not _explicit_, 

	Also:

Amendment IX

-(1791) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be 
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
	
	Seems to indicate that even if it isn't listed, we should still 
have it. 

	Then:
Amendment IV-

(1791) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, 
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or 
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the 
persons or things to be seized.

	Seems (to me, and IANAL) indicate that there is (at least in the minds
of the writers) a distinction between _public_ information which is fair game,
and public information, which is only fair game if there is enough public
information to justify crossing that line. 

> Constitutional issues are not easily discussed in short messages like this.
> Suffice it to say the issue of whether a "right to privacy" exists has been
> long discussed, most recently by Bork, Posner, and others (I skimmed the
> latest Posner book a while back, and liked his style).

	There is a big question in my mind whether things are so complicated 
that we need lawyers, or they are so complicated because we have lawyers. 

	It seems to me that the constitution is written rather simply, at least
prior to the 14th amendment. Congress Shall Make No Law... where is the 
confusion? 

	It is the fact that some people "know best" what is good for others,
and wish to enforce this "knowlege" upon the rest of us. 

	God save me from your over zelous followers.
> 
> The issue hit when abortion advocates argued that a "woman's right to
> privacy" allowed abortions. However, none of the enumerated rights made
> this obvious. Bork has opined that no right to privacy can be inferred from
> the Constitution.
> 
> (And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy" argument for abortion
> was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't infanticide be equally
> protected by a woman's right to privacy?)

	Or a man's.

snow wrote:
> Mr. may wrote:
> > At 1:22 PM -0600 2/17/97, snow wrote:
> Amendment IV-
> (1791) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
> and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
> affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
> persons or things to be seized.
> It seems to me that the constitution is written rather simply, at least
> prior to the 14th amendment. Congress Shall Make No Law... where is the
> confusion?

Simple, but....  In a right to jury trial of peers, are the peers
the peers of the defendant or the peers of the victim?  Both the
Rodney King officers and the O.J. cases were perfect examples of
how, when you switch the peer groups, you reverse the decisions.

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

on or about 970219:0722 Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> said:

+Simple, but....  In a right to jury trial of peers, are the peers the
+peers of the defendant or the peers of the victim?  Both the Rodney
+King officers and the O.J. cases were perfect examples of how, when you
+switch the peer groups, you reverse the decisions.

    you trying to be some kind of trouble maker? please remember that 
    *all* the fairweather dogooder liberals have been telling us for 
    years that everyone is equal.  yeah, right!

    therefore, juries are obviously color blind, and not dazzled by 
    attorneys calling up racism.  yeah, right!

    as to Powell, he is/was an animal who should have been put away 
    permanently. 

    Koon was an officer's officer (personal experience) and was in the 
    wrong place at the wrong time, not willing to step in. Koon lost 24 
    years of service without a mark, his pension, and all his benefits 
    with 5 or 6 kids at home --and they had to go into hiding until 
    found by the liberal press again and again who obviously felt the 
    family should be punished as well.  we wont even bother with the 
    issues of double jeopardy when they pull a federal civil rights 
    trial on all of them after the state court cleared everyone except 
    Powell who they hung on.  they had a clear right to try Powell, 
    noone else.

    and the video played for evidence missed the first 90 seconds when a 
    very large animal (Rodney King can be described no other way) came 
    out of the car, dancing the jig, and went after Powell.  by the time 
    the prosecutors, particularly the Feds, were through itimidating the 
    witnesses, nobody told the truth. 

    Rodney King had been busted for public intoxication, controlled 
    substances, and disorder enough times that he was well recognized 
    for what he was  --and easily identified.

    in the spooks, we called Powell's actions "the red mask" --once you 
    start staring the beast in the eye, you are so wired on there is no 
    stopping until your opponent is jello. 'shocktroops' or 
    'Stossentruppen' should never be used in civilian police forces, 
    except possibily on SWAT teams, not an average street cop.

    and why did we have the trial in the first place? simply because the 
    LA Times and KABC decided there was going to be a trial.  I dont 
    know whether to chalk it off to their bleeding heart liberals, or 
    just the usual greed for money to be made on high profile news.
    or is it just more of the usual politically correct beat down of
    the oppressive whiteface?

    it is sometimes difficult to defend the LA Police department when 
    you knew Daryll Gates and his predecessor, "Big Ed" Davis. Both of
    them are cowboys; Big Ed is now a state senator from the far west 
    Valley, what was horse country when I lived there.  they had a job 
    to do, and LA is a mean place. the city itself is 2/3 poverty, half 
    of that extreme ghetto and barrio problems.

    Big Ed is the man who proposed the fitting ending to airline 
    hijackings, and set up his display in plain sight: in front of
    the American Airlines terminal building 4 at LAX before LAX was 
    double decked.  

    Big Ed parked a 40 ft flat bed trailer out there with a judge's 
    bench at one end and a gallows at the other end with the jury box 
    and dock in between.  yes, sir, justice by the hijackers' peers; 
    take the next 12 citizens coming out the doors.

    perfect and swift justice on someone who has no defense for his 
    actions.

    everything else falls under this short take by a prominent author 
    discussing the problem with jury selection: 

        "The men who murdered Virginia's [Nevada] original twenty-six
    cemetary occupants were never punished.  Why?  Because Alfred the 
    Great, when he invented trial by jury, and knew that he had 
    admirably framed it to secure justice in his age of the world, was 
    not aware that in the nineteenth century the condition of things 
    would be so entirely changed that unless he rose from the grave and
    altered the jury plan to meet the emergency, it would prove the most
    ingenious and infallible agency for defeating justice that
    human wisdom could contrive.  For how could he imagine that we
    simpletons would go on using his jury plan after circumstances had
    stripped it of its usefulness, any more than he could imagine that
    we would go not using his candle clock after we had invented
    chronometers?  In his day news could not travel fast, and hence he
    could easily find a jury of honest, intelligent men who had not
    heard of the case they were called to try - but in our day of
    telegraph and newspapers his plan compels us to swear in juries
    composed of fools and rascals, because the system rigidly excludes
    honest men and men of brains.

    "I remember one of those sorrowful farces, in Virginia, which we 
    call a jury trial.  A noted desperado killed Mr. B, a good citizen, 
    in the most wanton and cold-blooded way.  Of course the papers were 
    full of it, and all men capable of reading read about it.  And of 
    course all men not deaf and dumb and idiotic talked about it.  A jury
    list was made out, and Mr.  B. L., a prominent banker and a valued
    citizen, was questioned precisely as he would have been questioned
    in any court in America:

        "`Have you heard of this homicide?'
        "`Yes.'
        "`Have you held conversations on the subject?'
        "`Yes.'
        "`Have you formed or expressed opinions about it?'
        "`Yes.'
        "`Have you read newspaper accounts of it?'
        "`Yes.'
        "`We do not want you.'

        "A minister, intelligent, esteemed, and greatly respected; a 
    merchant of high character and known probity; a mining 
    superintendent of intelligence and unblemished reputation; a 
    quartz-mill owner of excellent standing, were all questioned in 
    the same way, and all set aside.  Each said the public talk and the
    newspaper reports had not so biased his mind but that sworn
    testimony would overthrow his previously formed opinions and enable
    him to render a verdict without prejudice and in accordance with
    the facts.  But of course such men could not be trusted with the
    case.  Ignoramuses alone could mete out unsullied justice.

        "When the peremptory challenges were all exhausted, a jury of 
    twelve men was empaneled - a jury who swore they had neither heard,
    read, talked about, nor expressed an opinion concerning a murder
    which the very cattle in the corrals, the Indians in the sagebrush,
    and the stones in the streets were cognizant of!  It was a jury
    composed of two desperadoes, two low beerhouse politicians, three
    barkeepers, two ranchers who could not read, and three dull, stupid,
    human donkeys!  It actually came out afterward that one of these
    latter thought that incest and arson were the same thing.  "The
    verdict rendered by this jury was, Not Guilty.  What else could one
    expect?  "The jury system puts a ban upon intelligence and honesty,
    and a premium upon ignorance, stupidity, and perjury.  It is a shame
    that we must continue to use a worthless system because it was good
    a thousand years ago.  

        In this age, when a gentleman of high social standing,
    intelligence, and probity swears that the testimony given under
    solemn oath will outweigh, with him, street talk and newspaper
    reports based on mere hearsay, he is worth a hundred jurymen who
    will swear to their own ignorance and stupidity, and justice would
    be far safer in his hands than theirs.  Why could not the jury law
    be so altered as to give men of brains and honesty an equal chance
    with fools and miscreants?  Is it right to show the present
    favoritism to one class of men and inflict a disability on another,
    in a land whose boast is that all its citizens are free and equal?

        I am a candidate for the legislature.  I desire to tamper with 
    the jury law.  I wish to so alter it as to put a premium on
    intelligence and character, and close the jury box against idiots,
    blacklegs, and people who do not read newspapers.  But no doubt I
    shall be defeated - every effort I make to save the country `misses
    fire.'"
            --From "Roughing It" by Mark Twain, Chapter XLVIII.

 _____________________________________________________________________
  "Explain to me, slowly and carefully, 
    why if person A, when screwed over on a deal by B; 
    is morally obligated to consult, pay, and defer to, person C 
    for the purpose of seeing justice done; 
    and why person C has any legitimate gripe,
    if A just hauls off and smacks B around like a dead carp." 

 ___________________________________________________________attila_____
 "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: latin1
Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be

iQCVAwUBMwtSiL04kQrCC2kFAQEmrwQAylLGuPHBNqeVij2ll7bnuK2Qn3CCZFTF
0unEYtmWcDxV5YxwyYVVntpujuF0j38/A3XBKKOwkfqt2QibRIKsBq7lkkWjIQvl
re2y0q3XE6+/+Iw9gQbeNv2jEBH1fofIOLCKgAOYonjl+TXCMOJC8kJKszmr+QGr
uk0yviRPO5c=
=wRK0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

At 07:23 AM 2/20/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote:

(Ok, no, this doesn't have shit to do with C-punks, but I figure this is
going to the flames list anyway. Sue me for being off-topic.)

>I understood clearly the (supposed) intent of the feds in retrying
>the Whites in the South who were beating up on Blacks and getting
>off with White juries - I just believe they would have served the
>people better by declaring mistrials or something instead of using
>the "dual sovereignty" BS, since a study of the Constitution and
>its preparatory papers shows the fathers clearly would have balked
>at this.

While I think that the "dual sovereigns" theory is BS, I don't see how
declaring a mistrial wouldn't run into more or less the same DJ problem.

(Sometimes a retrial after a mistrial has a DJ problem, sometimes not - the
core question is whose fault the mistrial was. If it was caused intentionally
by the prosecution, the DJ clause will bar a retrial; but if the mistake was
nobody's fault or the defense's fault, DJ does not bar a retrial.) 

But if the federal government just looked at state prosecutions which ended
in a way that the feds didn't agree with, and arbitrarily declared mistrials
and retried the defendant(s), we're back at the same double jeopardy problem
- - a person is being tried twice for the same act(s). (Also, after mistrial,
the retrial is generally held  in the same court, but with a different jury.
Such a mistrial wouldn't solve the "prejudiced local jury" or "prejudiced
judge" problem.) Calling the excuse for the second trial "dual sovereigns" or
"mistrial" or "miscarriage of justice" doesn't change the basic facts. 

But there is a real problem behind the "dual sovereign" excuse/doctrine, and
that is that the two sovereigns may in fact have different interests or
different motives - like the example you mentioned, where local Southern
juries were reluctant (or outright unwilling) to convict local white people
for crimes committed against black people. The state government thought that
its interests were best served by a racially discriminatory criminal justice
system, or by ignoring injustice and discrimination. The federal government
(at least some parts of it) thought otherwise, or found it expedient to look
like they thought otherwise. How can the federal government pursue its
interests, let the state pursue its interests, and preserve both a meaningful
system of federal rights and respect for federalism? 

I agree that the "dual sovereign" doctrine is problematic, but I can't
articulate a better way to organize things and address the federalism/federal
rights problem, either. (One approach is to define the problem away, by
making some or all crimes exclusively federal or exclusively state crimes;
the problem is, voters like "tough on crime" legislators, and seem to vote
them into both state and federal legislatures. Unfortunately, we're
(collectively) getting what we're asking for.)
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5

iQEVAgUBMw1QN/37pMWUJFlhAQFBSgf/RmZN4XfDTCwsqqgBq6tr7gxptp8cKD9p
uYbE+4l84R7ppXq2/HctgJuEFkD79UGy73nifnKtmh9o/WUBrt12yco6NlHI1Ph+
u96yFP6ZG4OS6jNmMBTvmXpFdGEW7ueJA2Wnnp8lRMaux5Sg5pjtX9TExCPqmX8O
RPxhR+t/3wZHsx2l0tADGAhqzHW6HAGcCloPgskcPAh39vEkqy87Z4VRUHAvOhRP
15QPcPJiHl3noFeqPh/jetUivHqHnpiMw7Ya/RRypSfDyn7cuJzqFRsYoaLCY0i3
8C6oCBCivWHyPAcvqAJzdmgvCL+C4aek8VcZ0hjrLTxHpAsYlZmAyQ==
=fffv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Greg Broiles                | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell:
gbroiles@netbox.com         | 
http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.
                            |

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

At 11:56 PM 2/19/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote:

>It's good if you don't read the L.A. Times.  One of their lead editor-
>ializers (whores), a professor at USC law school named Erwin
>Chemerinsky,
>writes in relation to this subject "The federal government is an inde-
>pendent sovereign that cannot have its powers diminished by a state
>government's actions." (exact quote, 2/7/97).  Either that's a load of
>BS doubletalk, or it's one of the more fascistic commentaries from the
>Times, which is usually bad enough.

Hey, don't forget to shoot the messenger. Chemerinsky's statement is a
concise summary of at least the last 70 years of double jeopardy
jurisprudence. The only thing that's unusual about the use of the "dual
sovereign" doctrine against the cops who beat King was that it's usually used
against ordinary citizens, not cops. 

Do you suppose it's possible that some of the other evil conspiracies you see
lurking behind every bush are also just reflections of your own fears and
misunderstanding? 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5

iQEVAgUBMwwPvf37pMWUJFlhAQEdtwf+PXP4jgU9kLlJ4VmI0tp5SUu2A7+4SIu1
fUB6nVCnJFroRAh1ds7lDonW8tjQw19/iOYyg0e1O+8cX4VlC0FhPJjD1nGwReWg
z9rFjYpZ0J23Q/fGZwCziz4QF1QZwwqVoiQM+eur7cAKVCTHOZI8v7LEwtJZAeiU
TUYS5YR7Vn6lkJ1XZQJv6Cjo1ZWQmldSQ4vue4qAk3DyHoaahbqa8Wkjk1CBmdpk
jDmk9Uy3ejwZ54CZz1AQrGM4Cvpc9/rMtUHUuQttN7OU/YSUBTWZivD+TJoVQPAJ
iFVcVbRiF6dnzpi7dOYt7E/ZXox1NsH0rgJ8JZuU0s3nuwgtW6qimA==
=khMb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Greg Broiles                | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell:
gbroiles@netbox.com         | 
http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.
                            |

Greg Broiles wrote:
> At 11:56 PM 2/19/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote:
> >It's good if you don't read the L.A. Times.  One of their lead editor-
> >ializers (whores), a professor at USC law school named Erwin Chemerinsky,
> >writes in relation to this subject "The federal government is an inde-
> >pendent sovereign that cannot have its powers diminished by a state
> >government's actions." (exact quote, 2/7/97).  Either that's a load of
> >BS doubletalk, or it's one of the more fascistic commentaries from the
> >Times, which is usually bad enough.

> Hey, don't forget to shoot the messenger. Chemerinsky's statement is a
> concise summary of at least the last 70 years of double jeopardy
> jurisprudence. The only thing that's unusual about the use of the "dual
> sovereign" doctrine against the cops who beat King was that it's usually
> used against ordinary citizens, not cops. Do you suppose it's possible
> that some of the other evil conspiracies you see lurking behind every
> bush are also just reflections of your own fears and misunderstanding?

My background is not so much in conspiracy as it is in rational
problem solving.  Conspiracy is yet another model/filter with which
to evaluate events, sometimes useful unless a person automatically
rejects all of that and subscribes to the Elmer Fudd view of history.

I understood clearly the (supposed) intent of the feds in retrying
the Whites in the South who were beating up on Blacks and getting
off with White juries - I just believe they would have served the
people better by declaring mistrials or something instead of using
the "dual sovereignty" BS, since a study of the Constitution and
its preparatory papers shows the fathers clearly would have balked
at this.

One or more of the top feds also commented on the possibility of
retrying Simpson in another criminal case, saying it was not
possible under current law since it didn't have the same aspects
as the Rodney King cops trials. However, that doesn't take anything
away from the fact of a "democracy" run amok, in the hands of bozos
like Michael Eisner and what's-his-schmuck at the L.A. Times, who
are constantly beating the drums for revenge, so that the people
will find "some way, somehow" to lynch people like Simpson, to
"make him pay" for what he "so obviously" did to his victims.

Attila T. Hun wrote:
> on or about 970219:0722 Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> said:
> +Simple, but....  In a right to jury trial of peers, are the peers the
> +peers of the defendant or the peers of the victim?  Both the Rodney
> +King officers and the O.J. cases were perfect examples of how, when you
> +switch the peer groups, you reverse the decisions.

>     you trying to be some kind of trouble maker? please remember that
>     *all* the fairweather dogooder liberals have been telling us for
>     years that everyone is equal.  yeah, right!
>     therefore, juries are obviously color blind, and not dazzled by
>     attorneys calling up racism.  yeah, right!

It just makes me a little nervous to see jurors getting so personally
involved that they come out of the box with a clenched fist as a
(I suppose) victory salute.  I didn't care to watch the charade in
Santa Monica recently, but I doubt it was much better.

>     as to Powell, he is/was an animal who should have been put away
>     permanently.

I watched most of the first trial live in '92, since I wasn't working
that year. My impressions at the time went along with the presentation,
which was fair to the officers.  It was stated by Koon and one of the
other officers as much as a year later, when many cities across the
U.S. had been using the King video for training for several months to
a year, "The LAPD has not to this date provided their officers with
new tools and techniques to handle this kind of situation without a
repeat of the same" (quote approximate). Of course, if you're willing
to consider an alternative scenario, one which would appeal primarily
to "conspiracy buffs" and the like, you might recall that L.A. was
getting ready to put in a new freeway from the airport across the
very line where the most fires were (6,000-plus fires, so extensive
that the big jets couldn't fly over to LAX), and I think the outcome
was to save them a lot of work, a windfall as it were.

>     Koon was an officer's officer (personal experience) and was in
>  the wrong place at the wrong time, not willing to step in. Koon lost
>  24 years of service without a mark, his pension, and all his benefits
>     with 5 or 6 kids at home --and they had to go into hiding until
>     found by the liberal press again and again who obviously felt the
>     family should be punished as well.  we wont even bother with the
>     issues of double jeopardy when they pull a federal civil rights
>     trial on all of them after the state court cleared everyone except
>     Powell who they hung on.  they had a clear right to try Powell,
>     noone else.

It's good if you don't read the L.A. Times.  One of their lead editor-
ializers (whores), a professor at USC law school named Erwin
Chemerinsky,
writes in relation to this subject "The federal government is an inde-
pendent sovereign that cannot have its powers diminished by a state
government's actions." (exact quote, 2/7/97).  Either that's a load of
BS doubletalk, or it's one of the more fascistic commentaries from the
Times, which is usually bad enough.
 
BTW, the Times printed a large picture (first time I've ever seen) of
the chairman, someone named Schlossberg, and I think it's spelled
slightly different than the one who married Caroline Kennedy.
Anyway, this guy could be Michael Eisner's twin brother.  Two bozos
if I ever saw 'em, goofy-looking dudes, which would explain much
about their newspaper editorial policy.

>     and the video played for evidence missed the first 90 seconds when a
>     very large animal (Rodney King can be described no other way) came
>     out of the car, dancing the jig, and went after Powell.  by the time
>     the prosecutors, particularly the Feds, were through itimidating the
>     witnesses, nobody told the truth.

The suppression of evidence that worked in the police officers' 2nd
trial has apparently become the precedent for a whole lot of trials.
The feds are sweating hard on this OKC bombing thing - latest is that
the initial witnesses seeing McVeigh here or there have admitted to
contradictory descriptions they've given before.

Note that there was some jury tampering (IMO, and others too) in the
grand jury proceeding in OKC; also note the flimsy excuse for throwing
out the grand jury in the Simpson case, since they weren't going to
indict Simpson.  I didn't even read close on the De La Beckwith case,
where the feds finally nailed him after 20-plus years of trying, but
maybe there's something on the internet....

>     Rodney King had been busted for public intoxication, controlled
>     substances, and disorder enough times that he was well recognized
>     for what he was  --and easily identified.

Let anyone say whatever they want to about cops, but I'm glad it's
not me out there facing 220-lb guys on dust.  I heard first hand
from one who shot a guy twice, and he just kept coming.  If a .38
won't stop 'em, maybe that's where the big dogs come in handy.
It would've been interesting if the King video had a minute or so
with a couple of K-9's...

>     in the spooks, we called Powell's actions "the red mask" --once you
>     start staring the beast in the eye, you are so wired on there is no
>     stopping until your opponent is jello. 'shocktroops' or
>     'Stossentruppen' should never be used in civilian police forces,
>     except possibily on SWAT teams, not an average street cop.

When I went into the Army for combat training, I stood 5-10 and
weighed 120 lbs.  I weighed 130 when I came out.  I guess I could
have gone on patrol looking for Charlie, and maybe kept alive, if
I didn't have to take on some well-fed crazies whose lives were
turning to shit because of their enormous stupidity.  In any case,
I couldn't go out on the street in L.A. and face guys like King,
so I lean toward the cops as much as I can.  BTW (and speaking of
stupidity), the Christopher Commission named 44 or 45 cops out of
the LAPD's 8,000-plus as problem officers, and two(!) of the 45
went to the Simpson home the night/morning of the murders.

>     and why did we have the trial in the first place? simply because the
>     LA Times and KABC decided there was going to be a trial.  I dont
>     know whether to chalk it off to their bleeding heart liberals, or
>     just the usual greed for money to be made on high profile news.
>     or is it just more of the usual politically correct beat down of
>     the oppressive whiteface?

Big Money, Big Fame, Big Fortune.  Look at Dan Rather, Robert McNeil,
Bill Moyers, and others who profited handsomely from their on-the-
scene experience in the JFK killing.  Remember Netanyahu, who spent
all those hours on the telly during the Gulf War, playing the role
of the ultra-conservative Israeli leader who could step right in and
take command in a crisis?  Well, he did, and have you seen any recent
pictures of him?  Even when he's with Yessir Yurafart, he's beaming
broadly, like the cat that just ate the canary.  Big, big money.

>     it is sometimes difficult to defend the LA Police department when
>     you knew Daryll Gates and his predecessor, "Big Ed" Davis. Both of
>     them are cowboys; Big Ed is now a state senator from the far west
>     Valley, what was horse country when I lived there.  they had a job
>     to do, and LA is a mean place. the city itself is 2/3 poverty, half
>     of that extreme ghetto and barrio problems.
>     Big Ed is the man who proposed the fitting ending to airline
>     hijackings, and set up his display in plain sight: in front of
>     the American Airlines terminal building 4 at LAX before LAX was
>     double decked.
>     Big Ed parked a 40 ft flat bed trailer out there with a judge's
>     bench at one end and a gallows at the other end with the jury box
>     and dock in between.  yes, sir, justice by the hijackers' peers;
>     take the next 12 citizens coming out the doors.
>     perfect and swift justice on someone who has no defense for his
>     actions.

[heh heh]

The people of L.A. really liked Gates, because he kept the peace.
And they liked (Uncle) Tom Bradley just as well, since he kept the
city really clean.  No trash on the streets, no dirt, all the
beautiful shrubs lining the freeways well-watered - you ought to
see Hollywood since they started putting in the "subway" under
Mayor Riordan.  Anyone with any sense of pride at all would be
aghast at what's happened. Streets caving in, wooden planks covering
big holes on lots of streets that you have to drive over, it's a mess.
Even a lot of the old stars on the Walk of Fame were badly damaged.
Riordan must be a Communist, or Mafia or something.  Funny that when
he ran for mayor, his huge billboards all over town had his name in
big letters, and the next-to-last letter (a) was replaced with a
large red star, looking exactly like the ones they used under Mao.

[remainder snipped]

Timothy C. May wrote:
> >> Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the
> >> Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing
> >> number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals
> >> of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded,
> >> True Names revealed, etc.?
[snip]
> The issue hit when abortion advocates argued that a "woman's right to
> privacy" allowed abortions. However, none of the enumerated rights made
> this obvious. Bork has opined that no right to privacy can be inferred from
> the Constitution. (And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy"
> argument for abortion was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't
> infanticide be equally protected by a woman's right to privacy?)

A perfect invitation for rational argument.  You obviously refer to
the privacy/right to destroy your own personal property, which you
pretty much have in the U.S., Constitution or no.  So the issue
above is whether the unborn baby is personal property (in the sense
that I can chop off my hair or even my ear if I want to), or the
child is personal property.  The child issue has been settled
effectively for many years now, but the controversy remains on the
unborn.

At least some of this privacy discussion would be better presented
from another angle - how deep would the feds want to probe into the
common folks' lives, what techniques would be employed, how would
the serious folks get around those things, and where would the
greatest (and most serious) amount of actions converge to flare up
in the public consciousness (media, internet, etc.)?