Jim Bell Docket 3

We've updated Jim Bell's court docket to show July 18 entries for
the plea agreement:

   http://jya.com/jimbell-dock2.htm

It lists a waiver of indictment, a plea agreement "filed under seal"
and a hearing for sentencing set for October 17.

Jim's remanded to jail until then, making a total of five months of time
served since arrest.

Consider that everyone in the case is supported by the tax-extortion Jim
was fighting. The Federal/Community Defender program is bribed at
$308,000,000 for FY 1998.

Keep up this self-serving banditry, you millions of members of Crispin's 
extortion-by-law-mil/gov big-gun-show world, and reap what you sow.

At 08:55 AM 7/23/97 -0400, William H. Geiger III wrote:
>
>Has anyone contacted Jim's lawer about the recent IRS SPAM?
>
>Seems to me that the IRS leaking the Plea Agreement would be at least
>contempt of court.


With certain exceptions, court proceedings are open to the public which is
why one is able to read articles in newspapers about certain cases.

The only way that the IRS' leaking the Plea Agreement by sending email to
individuals would constitute contempt of court is if there was a gag order.

 

***********************************************************************
Lynne L. Harrison, Esq.     | "I love deadlines.  I love the whooshing    
Poughkeepsie, New York      |  sound they make as they fly by."  
http://www.dueprocess.com   |              - Douglas Adams
***********************************************************************

DISCLAIMER:  I am not your attorney; you are not my client.
             Accordingly, the above is *NOT* legal advice.

On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Lynne L. Harrison wrote:

> With certain exceptions, court proceedings are open to the public which is
> why one is able to read articles in newspapers about certain cases.
> 
> The only way that the IRS' leaking the Plea Agreement by sending email to
> individuals would constitute contempt of court is if there was a gag order.

A. It's unsolicited spam.
B. The way they gathered the list of addresses is questionable, and likely
off Jim's HD.  If this is the case, can it be used to send the warning
message?

=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos==============
.+.^.+.|  Ray Arachelian    | "If you wanna touch the sky, you must  |./|\.
..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com| be prepared to die.  And I hate cough  |/\|/\
<--*-->| ------------------ | syrup, don't you?"                     |\/|\/
../|\..| "A toast to Odin,  | For with those which eternal lie, with |.\|/.
.+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| strange aeons, even death may die.     |.....
======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================

>>On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Lynne L. Harrison wrote:
>
>I question, however, if is proper/appropriate for a governmental entity to
>retrieve email addresses off of a computer involved in a criminal matter
>and use those addresses to send the type of message that was sent to a
>selected few?  Unfortunately, I have no answer to this query.
>
>Do any other individuals have any thoughts concerning this issue?
>
>

(Since I am not a lawyer, I can pontificate without fear of reprisal.)
Since the message was a "press release" one could, with a reasonably
straight face, claim that it is covered by "freedom of the press."
Extracting addresses from a database would not be permitted, as
near as I can tell, by the Swedish Data Privacy Law. There is an
interesting article, in Swedish, in today's Svenska Dagbladet
<http://www.svd.se/> that suggests that *any* computer-generated
message (including ordinary word-processing letters) may violate
the data privacy law (but this might be a mis-reading of an
article I only skimmed, but didn't read carefully). Misusing
data on a computer file would be improper, irregardless of whether
the computer was involved in a criminal matter. Copyright violation,
if nothing else, even if it might be "fair use."

Martin Minow
minow@apple.com

>On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Lynne L. Harrison wrote:
>
>> With certain exceptions, court proceedings are open to the public which is
>> why one is able to read articles in newspapers about certain cases.
>> 
>> The only way that the IRS' leaking the Plea Agreement by sending email to
>> individuals would constitute contempt of court is if there was a gag order.


At 02:06 PM 7/24/97 -0400, Ray Arachelian wrote:
>
>A. It's unsolicited spam.
>B. The way they gathered the list of addresses is questionable, and likely
>off Jim's HD.  If this is the case, can it be used to send the warning
>message?


In my personal opinion (IMPO - see Disclaimer below), 47 USC 227 is the
closest statute that pertains to Question #1.  The problem is that
unsolicited email, per the statute's definition, refers to unsolicited
commercial email.  OTOH, if I were to email you privately, it would
technically be unsolicited.  If you replied and requested that I
discontinue, and I persisted, then most states have laws
governing/precluding my behavior.

Question #2 is a thornier issue.  As we know, we can get lists of email
addresses from a variety of sources.  The "missive" was neither slanderous
nor untrue.  Additionally, the beginning of the message described it as a
press release.  To allege that it was a "warning message", one would have
to prove that, in fact, it was not a press release but, rather, it was
meant to be a warning to the recipients.

I question, however, if is proper/appropriate for a governmental entity to
retrieve email addresses off of a computer involved in a criminal matter
and use those addresses to send the type of message that was sent to a
selected few?  Unfortunately, I have no answer to this query.

Do any other individuals have any thoughts concerning this issue?




***********************************************************************
Lynne L. Harrison, Esq.     | "I love deadlines.  I love the whooshing    
Poughkeepsie, New York      |  sound they make as they fly by."  
http://www.dueprocess.com   |              - Douglas Adams
***********************************************************************

DISCLAIMER:  I am not your attorney; you are not my client.
             Accordingly, the above is *NOT* legal advice.

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

In <1.5.4.32.19970723114324.006a189c@pop.pipeline.com>, on 07/23/97 
   at 07:43 AM, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> said:

>We've updated Jim Bell's court docket to show July 18 entries for the
>plea agreement:

>   http://jya.com/jimbell-dock2.htm

>It lists a waiver of indictment, a plea agreement "filed under seal" and
>a hearing for sentencing set for October 17.

>Jim's remanded to jail until then, making a total of five months of time
>served since arrest.

>Consider that everyone in the case is supported by the tax-extortion Jim
>was fighting. The Federal/Community Defender program is bribed at
>$308,000,000 for FY 1998.

>Keep up this self-serving banditry, you millions of members of Crispin's 
>extortion-by-law-mil/gov big-gun-show world, and reap what you sow.

Has anyone contacted Jim's lawer about the recent IRS SPAM?

Seems to me that the IRS leaking the Plea Agreement would be at least
contempt of court.

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBM9X/k49Co1n+aLhhAQExJgQAobaNPDGKrvbU2v9gPaUIXu3VtlE9AVp4
gfSBZILaERRQ+4CnDQK2sKQGTZdaFj+5x2b7xqrij1fc5ezt5TCQ54FwVDqGU2Nk
Xex7RilmXLjAeETM2yoFo2mQT8WejdzYSkjouvcmvmEGhmz1z/fGYpuPA0Od11O+
lT+XphehGmc=
=nack
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----