anon remailer

This guy has the IQ of a turnip...

relevant to anon remailers & society thread...

Tuesday December 2 12:07 PM EST 

Hate e-mail case to be retried

SANTA ANA, Calif., Dec. 2 (UPI) _ Saying the case has national importance,
federal prosecutors will
retry a 20-year-old man accused of sending threatening electronic mail to
Asian students at UC Irvine. 

Prosecutors announced their decision while opposing a bail request for
Richard Machado of Los
Angeles, the first person in the United States to be tried on charges of
committing a hate crime over the
Internet. 

His first trial on those charges ended with a deadlocked jury in November.
Jurors voted 9 to 3 to acquit
the former UC Irvine student. 

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Genaco told Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler
that it is important that the
case be resolved because other similar cases are certain to occur. 

Stotler denied bail for Machado, noting that he fled to Mexico when he was
first charged. 

Machado's retrial is scheduled to begin Jan. 27. 

_- 

David Honig 			honig@alum.mit.edu
---------------------------------------------------
If we can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people
under the pretense of
 caring for them, they will be happy.  -TJ

At 04:31 PM 12/2/97 -0600, TruthMonger wrote:
>David Honig wrote:
>> relevant to anon remailers & society thread...
>
>> SANTA ANA, Calif., Dec. 2 (UPI) _ Saying the case has national importance,
>> federal prosecutors will
>> retry a 20-year-old man accused of sending threatening electronic mail to
>> Asian students at UC Irvine.
>
>> Stotler denied bail for Machado, noting that he fled to Mexico when he was
>> first charged.
>
>  Are we supposed to feel 'safer' in public, knowing that we may be
>surrounded by people to whom it may be worthwhile to kill a few cops
>and innocent bystanders in order to avoid punishment for sending 
>nasty email, or having an unpaid parking ticket?

Turn the facetiousness down a notch, Monger-san.  This moron sent death
threats to individuals.  Its stupid that Fed "hate mail" laws inflate
the case, when its already a death-threat case, and its stupid that it gets
press because its the internet, but hey, this is the 90's.

It is pretty reasonable IMHO to hold people responsible for direct threats
when AND ONLY WHEN they can be traced to them (duh).

As for the loser in question, 'fleeing' to Mexico is an short drive from
Irvine,
its not like he actually had to pull some desperado stunts that would have
endangered others.

I'm frankly surprised Machado (or his presumably more intelligent
attorneys) didn't try
to deny sending the messages ("I left my terminal to go potty").  (This may
have to do 
with the technical circumstances of his capture, of which I'm unaware.)
But if the messages
were traceable, I've not yet read a (usually brilliant) <T>Monger rave
wherein you argue
that personal responsibility for threats is a null concept.




------------------------------------------------------------
      David Honig                   Orbit Technology
     honig@otc.net                  Intaanetto Jigyoubu

Information is a dense, colorless, odorless material readily transmitted
across empty space and arbitrary boundaries by shaking charged particles.

David Honig wrote: 
> At 04:31 PM 12/2/97 -0600, TruthMonger wrote:
> >> SANTA ANA, Calif., Dec. 2 (UPI) _ Saying the case has national importance,
> >> federal prosecutors will
> >> retry a 20-year-old man accused of sending threatening electronic mail to
> >> Asian students at UC Irvine.

> >  Are we supposed to feel 'safer' in public, knowing that we may be
> >surrounded by people to whom it may be worthwhile to kill a few cops
> >and innocent bystanders in order to avoid punishment for sending
> >nasty email, or having an unpaid parking ticket?
> 
> Turn the facetiousness down a notch, Monger-san.  

  I think you have me confused with TluthMongel.

> This moron sent death threats to individuals.  

> It is pretty reasonable IMHO to hold people responsible for direct threats
> when AND ONLY WHEN they can be traced to them (duh).

  In the jury's humble opinion, the prosecution didn't prove its case.
This is no problem for the government. They have the deep pockets 
required to prosecute as many times as needed to refine their attempts
to manipulate the minds of the jurors, or to get lucky and have a few
members of a split jury vote to convict because they don't want to
blow their trip to the Stones' concert.
  Lame fucks spending taxpayer money want to throw away a shitload
of money prosecuting this dweeb for a dweeb stunt and throw away
a bunch more money keeping him from fleeing the country so that he
can be thrown out of the country if convicted.
  Meanwhile, murderers who have actually killed people will be 
getting plea agreements that result in being released decades
earlier. Why? Because the court system is overloaded.

> But if the messages
> were traceable, I've not yet read a (usually brilliant) <T>Monger rave
> wherein you argue
> that personal responsibility for threats is a null concept.

  Chief CypherPunks Hate Criminal, Tim May, can generally be counted
on to expound much more eloquently than myself on the concepts and
sometimes subtle differences between freedom of speech and freedom
to get your ass kicked for being a fucking loudmouth asshole.
  My specialty is my ability to back up my bad hominy random
character assassinations, a la George Carlin, by telling people
what they already know (but pretend they don't really know), by 
shining the Verbal Light of Truth upon the InfoFog generated by
others and ourselves in a desparate attempt to convince ourselves
that the sign announcing the entranceway to the Home for the
Criminally Insane is not, in fact, on the 'wrong' side of the
door. (aka - hollering "Bullshit!")

e.g. - "Knixon knew!"
    "The Iranian hostages who cost Carter the election were released
     on Reagan's inauguration day. How lucky can you get?" <nod-nod,
     wink-wink>

OswaldActedAloneMonger

David Honig wrote:
> relevant to anon remailers & society thread...

> SANTA ANA, Calif., Dec. 2 (UPI) _ Saying the case has national importance,
> federal prosecutors will
> retry a 20-year-old man accused of sending threatening electronic mail to
> Asian students at UC Irvine.

> Stotler denied bail for Machado, noting that he fled to Mexico when he was
> first charged.

  Are we supposed to feel 'safer' in public, knowing that we may be
surrounded by people to whom it may be worthwhile to kill a few cops
and innocent bystanders in order to avoid punishment for sending 
nasty email, or having an unpaid parking ticket?
  When standing near someone who begins to jaywalk, should we hit the
deck, in case this is their third offense and will kill to avoid life
in prison? If the guy in the next parking spot doesn't plug the meter,
are we in danger of taking a stray bullet from a Swat team?

  Perhaps I am being a bit facetious, or perhaps I am a prophet, able
to see six months into the future...

  God help you if your 'crime' will provide some self-important member
of the legal system with national press.
  Double-'God help you', if you win your case.

TruthMonger
"Advocating the death penalty for syntax errors, since 1984."