I Got Mine

I received my visit from the friendly IRS guys tonight, asking about CJ/Toto.
It seems that they had a copy of two emails (which they took from his
confiscated computer) with my name on them - one of them the one in which I
chastized him for sending a threatening letter to Billg.   According to the
headers in the message which they showed to me, Toto forwarded my reply through
remailer@replay.com, Anon-To: billg.

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.  In our
conversation, I discovered things that I didn't know about Toto's situation:
that he had sent threatening letters to the Mounties, and that he had threated
to kill the judge trying Jim's case.   This is why he will be held and tried in
the local jail - because the potential victims (besides the Mounties) are in
this area.  (sigh) I'm afraid CJ really went over the edge here and backed
himself up in a corner.  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).

Kind of amusingly, one of them asked if CJ had ever asked me to join the Circle
of Eunuchs!  heh.   I explained that it was Toto's Art imitating Life, creating
stories about a revolutionary group based on the list discussions, and that I
suspected he called it the Circle of Eunuchs because of the accusations ( by
*some people* )that cpunks are ineffectual.

We had a bit of discussion on a number of things, including the subject of free
speech and how close one can get to it before being subject to arrest.  I asked
them what that crucial point was when this would happen, since there is no crime
until action is actually taken.  They said this would be when a direct threat is
made and a specific name is mentioned.  I referenced as an example the web site
which some group put up containing a list of the names of abortion-performing
doctors, mentioned in the press as a 'hit list'.   They said that a web site
with a list of names is not a problem.  It is when statements are made about
killing the individuals on the list that a person would have "crossed the line".
One of the investigators also brought up the issue of the conflict between free
speech vs life & liberty, of when one infringes on the other (as in threatening
to take away someone's life).  I remarked that one must always be prepared for
the unexpected, and they made some points about taking threats seriously and the
necessity of government agents looking out for their personal safety.

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.  I suggested if that happens we could all go out to dinner
: ) and they thought this would be quite interesting.  One of the investigators
expressed a great interest in the cpunk dicussions and concepts;  I described
something of what the list is about and the flow of subscribers through it, and
referred him to the archives, saying '94-'95 were some good years.  I'm sure
given a little time and several dinners we could convert him to the Dark Side.
<g>

   ..
Blanc

On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Blanc wrote:

> I received my visit from the friendly IRS guys tonight, asking about CJ/Toto.
> [...]
> In our conversation, I discovered things that I didn't know about Toto's
> situation [...]

More information is interesting, but it's important to remember that cops
are free to lie to ordinary people and suspects; it's not considered a
violation of your constitutional rights, of the law, or of their
professional standards. Good interrogators/investigators learn to use
social and psychological techniques to gain the results they want - which
may be gaining intelligence, extracting a confession, or isolating a
suspect from their friends/supporters/codefendants.

Just as a reasonable person will likely listen cautiously to an accused
person proclaiming their innocence, a reasonable person should also listen
cautiously when the prosecution proclaims someone's guilt.  

--
Greg Broiles
gbroiles@netbox.com

At 9:22 PM -0800 12/2/98, Blanc wrote:

>(On a piece of paper they asked me to write down some of the statements I made
>regarding my limited association with Toto (for the record, in lieu of a court
>appearance), and asked that I also explain what I mean by "spoofing", as I had
>thus described what Toto might have been up to with those incendiary
>messages.)
....
>At least they were not offensive, but polite and pleasant, but it's true one

Think "Good cop, bad cop."

It seems to me that when you invite them in for cookies and tea and have a
"pleasant" conversation with them, you are only helping to put away Toto.
Whatever you tell them, they will almost certainly only use the negative
things you tell them. Or the general knowledge you give them, or contact
lists, etc.

I have not been contacted by either American or Canadian cops with regard
to either Jim Bell or Toto. I _hope_ I will have the presence of mind to
tell them to leave.

I certainly cannot foresee letting them inside my home, if only because I
expect they would get nervous about the Winchester Defender 12-gauge
sometimes left leaning against a wall, and the various assault rifles left
at the read in case a narc needs to be dispatched.

Also, my time is not free. If they want my expertise on some matter, let
them pay my consulting rate. As this is unlikely to happen, I would simply
(I hope) tell them to leave my property immediately.

(My planned answer, rehearsed in my mind over the several "scares" seen in
recent years, is to say something along the lines of: "Am I under arrest?
If so, I wish to speak to a lawyer. If not, please leave.")

If they want me to speak about assassination markets, the need for killing
millions of political criminals, and the use of anonymous systems for
smashing the state, why would I ever agree to speak with cops?

Blanc, I'm afraid that in your desire to be "helpful," you have only
worsened the situation for Toto. Believe me, they are not interested in
exculpatory evidence...whatever that might be in this context. They are
more likely interested in contact lists, in educating themselves to make
themselves more convincing witnesses, etc. Expect to see any knowledge you
conveighed to them coming back in Toto's trial from the mouths of
prosecution witnesses.

--Tim May

"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, just the way the President did."
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.

At 3:13 PM -0800 12/3/98, Petro wrote:
>At 5:42 PM -0500 12/3/98, Tim May wrote:
>>
>>If they want me to speak about assassination markets, the need for killing
>>millions of political criminals, and the use of anonymous systems for
>>smashing the state, why would I ever agree to speak with cops?
>
>	I think millions is overstating things just a little bit, unless
>you mean world wide.

Those of who have voted to take away guns, those who have actually done the
taking away, those who have sent in JBTs to break into homes, those who
have ....

It adds up fast. Whatever the precise total is, removing them is what
crypto anarchy and untraceable transactions make possible. Read about this
is my Cyphernomicon, released long before Jim Bell had his "wonderful idea."

--Tim May

"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, just the way the President did."
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.

At 7:04 AM -0800 12/4/98, Petro wrote:

>	I just disagree with your "millions who need killing". Because some
>beleives in a polly-annaish world were taking guns away from the "good
>guys" also keeps them away from the "bad guys" is no reason to kill them.
>It's a reason to render them impotent until such time as they wake the hell
>up, and if they don't manage to wake the hell up until some mugger points a
>chinese manufactured .25 at them in the middle of the night and just
>fucking pulls the trigger because murder carries the same punishment (or
>less) than carrying a gun (enemy of the state) then "we" didn't kill them,
>they killed themselves.

You are free to adopt the beliefs of what I'll call "the forgiveness
libertarians." Summarized, roughly, as:

"You've been stealing from me, sending my sons to die in your foreign wars,
imprisoning my friends for what they smoke or eat...but let's let bygones
be bygones...stop your stealing ways and we'll forget about what you did in
the past."

This is a dominant thread of libertarianism, though it is seldom
articulated as I have just done. Look at the platform of the Libertarian
Party and you'll see this "forget the past, look to the future" approach.

I, on the other hand, have drifted into the camp I will dub "the vengeance
libertarians." Summarized, roughly, as:

"You've stolen my property, you've imprisoned my friends, you've passed
laws making us all criminals, you've started wars to enrich your
military-industrial complex friends, and you're corrupt bastards. You can
forget about some kind of "libertarian amnesty." It's going to be payback
time, with at least hundreds of thousands of statist judges, politicians,
cops, soldiers, and other such persons going to the gallows. Payback time.
Welfare recipients are going to have to pay back all that they have stolen,
with compounded interest. Out of their pockets, or while in labor camps.
Payback time."


--Tim May

"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, just the way the President did."
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.

>From Tim May:

: "You've stolen my property, you've imprisoned my friends, you've passed
: laws making us all criminals, you've started wars to enrich your
: military-industrial complex friends, and you're corrupt bastards. You can
: forget about some kind of "libertarian amnesty." It's going to be payback
: time, with at least hundreds of thousands of statist judges, politicians,
: cops, soldiers, and other such persons going to the gallows.
: Payback time.  Welfare recipients are going to have to pay back all that
: they have stolen, with compounded interest. Out of their pockets, or while in
: labor camps.  Payback time."
.................................................



	When.


   ..
Blanc

Well, I'm glad my post has stirred up everyone into providing examples of proper
cpunk behavior/responses when confronted with a visit from the Friendly
Neighborhood Investigation Corp.   It's great you're sharing your ideas on
recalcitrance and resistance, it's more useful than all the jibberjabber about
how much you hate the govmt.   (Yes, but how do you actually respond to a real
live representative standing at your door (they showed me their Batches), to a
real-live situtation when you are taken to a little room and asked to strip
("asked"?) at the airport?)   Ya'll should have done this earlier, when the news
of Toto first came out.  And think about it now, because if any mail from you
was on his computer, you're likely to be next.

But relax!  -  I said nothing which is not public knowledge, which is not
already evident from the list archives.  As far as I'm concerned, it was true
but essentially useless.   I confirmed things which they already knew or would
already know from the postings to the list -  they mentioned Tim's attitude, for
instance, and Declan's stories on Toto, and the info on John Young's website,
and Toto's website, and asked me if I knew of Adam Back (who?).   Furthermore,
just because I am nice and mannerly doesn't mean I couldn't as well be a
hypocrite.   James Bond is also a complete gentleman.  Depending on the
circumstance.
(Q:  so, are you a hacker?   A:   <g>  no.  I don't know Unix)


Tim said:

: Blanc, I'm afraid that in your desire to be "helpful," you have only
: worsened the situation for Toto. Believe me, they are not interested in
: exculpatory evidence...whatever that might be in this
: context. They are more likely interested in contact lists, in educating
: themselves to make themselves more convincing witnesses, etc. Expect to see
any
: knowledge you conveighed to them coming back in Toto's trial from the mouths
of
: prosecution witnesses.

I was not being "helpful".  I relied to their inquiries; I didn't offer
information.  I made my own inquiries to them, as I already said, about the
dividing line between free speech and when they will go seeking to arrest a
person.

In terms of educating them, I don't have any objections to probing their mind to
see what/how they think about things which we have discussed at length on the
list.   I also don't have any objections in referring them to read further:   I
told them that the cpunks often have deep discussions on this and other such
subjects, where we  pursue an understanding of controversial issues like free
speech and privacy.   I told them that there were many very smart people on the
list, especially back in the earlier years, although some of these had left to
pursue their other interests.  I told them it is an open forum where people come
and go - they stay awhile, sign off, return, there are kooks who show up and get
people riled up, there are those who bring up contradictions and get jumped on
for their philosophical errors.  I said that the spectrum of philosophies
regarding governments go from the extreme anarchists who want to be completely
self-governing, to those on the opposite end who would like to have a camera in
every room of their house watching them in case anything went wrong.  I said
that most people are in the middle, not wanting too much governance but not
totally against it.  I said that when the opposite groups clash, there is a lot
of heat and sometimes light.  (they didn't ask, and I didn't tell them, which
side of the spectrum I'm on)

If one of the investigators says he is interested in the concepts of which we
discuss, I am glad to bring up any points I can make for the side of
self-government, individuality, privacy, etc. (not that I would have a prolonged
argument, but only that I would inquire as to why they are so far out of touch).
If they have any intelligence at all, they will learn something;  if not, well,
let's compare that to the time wasted trying to enlighten one of our current
prolific posters, whose name I shall not mention because I'm sympathetic to his
condition, or all the time which has been spent going over the same arguments
with those who never got any benefit from it anyway.  If there's anyone I would
be glad to aim flashes of brilliant arguments toward, it would be an IRS agent.
At least they would know definitely, without my having to flash my gun or pour
chemicals on their office rug, where I would stand in a case of "emergency".   I
am not afraid of making my stand this way, to their face.

If it is anyone who could use some perspective on the controversies over
government and privacy, it would be them.   And above all else, beyond being
symbolically defiant, I would first aim for being Real.   It can be the hardest
thing to do, stand your ground and be calm and real.

   ..
Blanc
Think Thong

At 8:39 PM -0800 12/3/98, Blanc wrote:
>Well, I'm glad my post has stirred up everyone into providing examples of
>proper
>cpunk behavior/responses when confronted with a visit from the Friendly
>Neighborhood Investigation Corp.   It's great you're sharing your ideas on
>recalcitrance and resistance, it's more useful than all the jibberjabber about
>how much you hate the govmt.   (Yes, but how do you actually respond to a real
>live representative standing at your door (they showed me their Batches), to a
>real-live situtation when you are taken to a little room and asked to strip
>("asked"?) at the airport?)   Ya'll should have done this earlier, when
>the news
>of Toto first came out.  And think about it now, because if any mail from you
>was on his computer, you're likely to be next.

I was very careful to phrase my points in terms of how I _hope_ to respond
in a certain way, not claiming I have in the past or know I will in the
future. Maybe I'll wimp out, maybe I'll offer to tell them everything I
know about the Politician Removal Lottery, maybe I'll open up on them with
my shotgun. Who knows?

My point, parallel to Duncan's, is that talking to narcs and cops almost
always never helps the accused. If one's goal is to help the prosecution,
then by all means talk to the prosecution's investigators.

As for the general points, Duncan and several others have made these kinds
of common sense points in the past...even when you were subscribed to the
list. For example, some folks even carry a "What to do if questioned by the
police" card in their wallet, to either read from--assuming this is
allowed--or to reread occasionally as a reminder.

You, apparently having had personal contact with either one or both of the
parties, and living in the state where both cases are centered, might have
anticipated questioning by the cops.


>
>But relax!  -  I said nothing which is not public knowledge, which is not
>already evident from the list archives.

Don't understimate the help that a helpful person provides.

--Tim May




"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, just the way the President did."
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.

>From Tim May:

: I was very careful to phrase my points in terms of how I
: _hope_ to respond in a certain way, not claiming I have in the past or know I
: will in the future. Maybe I'll wimp out, maybe I'll offer to tell them
: everything I know about the Politician Removal Lottery, maybe I'll open up
: on them with my shotgun. Who knows?
.............................................


I expect how one responds will in part depend on how rational you think "they"
are, or suppose them to be.   I know that if I had been just subpoenaed with a
piece of paper I would have said 'no' or just not shown up, in spite of the
trouble that might get me into.   But I generally wouldn't prevent from talking
to Authorized Government Officials, although only a very little.   I think it's
best to try to understand the situation first, and see what the deal is, before
jumping to conclusions and alarming them into attack mode, like Hyper-Anon
mentioned (I hadn't envisioned such a scenario, thanks for the notice (how do
you know about this, or are you just imagining that that's what will happen?) ).

I did say that everyone should think about their own responses to trying
situations, because it is a valuable mental exercise.   Some people's bark *is*
louder than their bite, after all, and they do bark pretty loudly in email,
especially anonymously.


   ..
Blanc, who will no longer talk to strangers in the hall without first conferring
with Duncan McCloud of the Clan of Immortals

At 08:39 PM 12/3/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Well, I'm glad my post has stirred up everyone into providing examples of
proper
>cpunk behavior/responses when confronted with a visit from the Friendly
>Neighborhood Investigation Corp.   It's great you're sharing your ideas on
>recalcitrance and resistance, it's more useful than all the jibberjabber
about
>how much you hate the govmt.   (Yes, but how do you actually respond to a
real
>live representative standing at your door (they showed me their Batches),
to a
>real-live situtation when you are taken to a little room and asked to strip
>("asked"?) at the airport?)   Ya'll should have done this earlier, when
the news
>of Toto first came out.  And think about it now, because if any mail from you
>was on his computer, you're likely to be next.

I specifically remember a number of clueful letters on the topic which hit
this list as the whole CJ issue came up. As I recall, there were plenty of
warnings that cpunks could expect visits. In fact, you're "I got mine"
subject line seems to indicate that you were aware of this concept. 

Secondly, since e/mail is a digital phenomenon, it can not be physically
attached to a source. Since perfect copies of it can be freely made any
computer can be made to appear as the originating computer. It is the very
easiest type of "evididence" to plant. Imagine a virus or Trojan horse that
put incriminating stuff on a computer w/o the owner knowing about it. The
technology is readily available and no doubt in use. You think that a cop
who would use a "throw down" gun or plant physical evidence wouldn't also
be capable of planting digital evidence. 

I think it will be very interesting once the true nature of computer
contents are litigated in terms of its non-physical nature. Without a
digital signature that cannot be forged any file on any computer is really
just digital nothingness that could have been placed there by anyone. There
is absolutely no way to prove anybody wrote anything unless you have a
number of reliable eyewitnesses physically present at the event.

COPS LIE!! FEDS LIE!!  Those alleged threats by Toto may (probably)
actually be the result of some MIB that couldn't get anything else on him.
So he invented the letters and later planted them on CJs computer during
the undoubtedly unsupervised session in which they supposedly read these
things off his computer.

I personally have been roughed up (no bruises, unfortunately) by cops when
I refused to allow them to search my car. Fortunately all the uproar gather
such a crowd that they were unable to plant any false evidence and since
there was nothing there in the first place they had nothing to hold me on.
I wish they had bruised me, it would have made settlement talks faster and
more productive ;)

When asked at the Dusseldorf airport to turn-on my computer, I did ask why.
When told that they wanted to make sure it was real. I clicked it on, let
whir around for a couple of seconds and turned it off. No problem. Had they
asked to see they contents I would have refused. That would be like letting
them read my personal papers, which they have no right to do. If arrested I
will fight it. But I'm a real hard-head. That's why I left the US. Got
tired of always being hassled.

However, hard-headed I am, I do admire the wonderful suggestions (a la
Clinton) by anon!

>
>But relax!  -  I said nothing which is not public knowledge, which is not
>already evident from the list archives.  As far as I'm concerned, it was true
>but essentially useless.   I confirmed things which they already knew or
would
>already know from the postings to the list -  they mentioned Tim's
attitude, for
>instance, and Declan's stories on Toto, and the info on John Young's website,
>and Toto's website, and asked me if I knew of Adam Back (who?).   

The stuff on this list is only public knowledge from a legal stand point.
It is often technologically or ideologically so far over most peoples heads
(especially MIBs and AOLes) that it is unfair to characterize it that way.
Besides, the real point isn't that they know anything, it's that they have
either identified you as a possible stooge or a suspect. You helpfulness is
probably going to cost someone (maybe yourself) very dearly.

Innocent people get fried all the time because of bad IDs. "Well, I thought
it was him...It LOOKED like him..." If you aren't sure--keep it to
yourself. And if you weren't then when CJ allegedly wrote and sent those
letters then it is impossible for you to be sure. So, PLEASE do everyone a
favor and stop "helping".

>Furthermore,
>just because I am nice and mannerly doesn't mean I couldn't as well be a
>hypocrite.   James Bond is also a complete gentleman.  Depending on the
>circumstance.
>(Q:  so, are you a hacker?   A:   <g>  no.  I don't know Unix)

I have considered the possibility that you are in fact some sort of
government "agent" and your mission is to draw out similar (unfounded)
convictions of CJ from others on the list. If that is your purpose, may you
burn in Hell. 

The bottom line is if you are not working to help build the governments
case, then on your next visit with them please try a little honest doubt
and forgetfulness.

>
>
>Tim said:
>
>: Blanc, I'm afraid that in your desire to be "helpful," you have only
>: worsened the situation for Toto. Believe me, they are not interested in
>: exculpatory evidence...whatever that might be in this
>: context. They are more likely interested in contact lists, in educating
>: themselves to make themselves more convincing witnesses, etc. Expect to see
>any
>: knowledge you conveighed to them coming back in Toto's trial from the
mouths
>of
>: prosecution witnesses.

A Note to Tim, I don't think you are as sure of Toto's identity as you
sound. I'm not even sure you mean to sound as if you are sure of his
identity. It may just be from the urge to type less keystrokes. Whatever
the case, if your not sure CJ is the one and only Toto then please refer to
Toto for Toto stuff and CJ for the guy in Jail. It's more clear and since
CJ is innocent until proven guilty, we should give him the benefit of the
doubt.

>
>I was not being "helpful".  I relied to their inquiries; I didn't offer
>information.  I made my own inquiries to them, as I already said, about the
>dividing line between free speech and when they will go seeking to arrest a
>person.
>
>In terms of educating them, I don't have any objections to probing their
mind to
>see what/how they think about things which we have discussed at length on the
>list.   I also don't have any objections in referring them to read
further:   I
>told them that the cpunks often have deep discussions on this and other such
>subjects, where we  pursue an understanding of controversial issues like free
>speech and privacy.   I told them that there were many very smart people
on the
>list, especially back in the earlier years, although some of these had
left to
>pursue their other interests.  

And there were a lot of smart people on McCarthy's list... All turned in by
people who couldn't possibly know the truth about the person they accused.
Or perhaps did it save their own butt.

Hell, maybe this will the McCarthy case of the new century... It should
take about two years to blow up into a full on witch hunt and blacklisting
of cpunks and other "anti-social" types. With the Y2K problem sure to be
pissing lots of people off, the public will certainly be willing to support
ridding society of all those computer geeks that have caused all this
trouble...

>of heat and sometimes light.  (they didn't ask, and I didn't tell them, which
>side of the spectrum I'm on)

It doesn't matter. Their job is NOT to find the truth. Their job is to
build cases. These are not equivalent endeavors. Far too many times they
are not even compatible endeavors.

>   I am not afraid of making my stand this way, to their face.

Fine, but until they arrest you stay out of it. Use YOUR trial as your
soapbox and not CJs.

>
>If it is anyone who could use some perspective on the controversies over
>government and privacy, it would be them.   And above all else, beyond being
>symbolically defiant, I would first aim for being Real.   It can be the
hardest
>thing to do, stand your ground and be calm and real.

Then please, get real and get honest, stop talking about things you THINK
are true. Those are opinions NOT facts, and should not be confused. Put
those fuzzy warm feelings away and face the fact that these guys are not
your girl friends chatting and discussing things that tick them off. These
guys are out to build a case against someone so that they can destroy his
life. HE IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. He has a right to a FAIR trial.
PLEASE, let's wait for the trial before convicting him!!!

APF

At 08:39 PM 12/3/98 -0800, Blanc wrote:
>(Yes, but how do you actually respond to a real
>live representative standing at your door (they showed me their Batches),
to a
>real-live situtation when you are taken to a little room and asked to strip
>("asked"?) at the airport?)   

I was discussing this very question with the inamorata of a member of this
list recently in San Jose.  We were trying to figure out why I knew
instinctively what to say when confronted with government agents and she
didn't (though she is an attorney).  I figured out that it was because I
read Heinlein.  He taught a lot about how to respond to these things.
Those who haven't read Heinlein (or don't learn from books) won't know what
to say.  And in these high stress situations, answers which you have
thought about in advance or conducted mental simulations with will come out
more easily.  

You say - "Go away."  "Write me a letter."  "I only deal with government
agents via my lawyer."  "Where's Your Warrant."  Or how about -- "My
lawyer's name is X, I have officially informed you that I am represented by
counsel and thus you cannot question me without counsel being present."

When they write a letter, you handle it the way Rumpole of the Baily
handled those letters from the Inland Revenue.  You throw it away.

Some years ago at 5000 Bonny Doone Road Santa Cruz, CA an IRS agent rang
the bell outside the gate in the fence of the reinforced concrete house
owned by Robert Anson Heinlein.  He wanted to talk.  Heinlein said "go
away" "write a letter."  The Agent said "you're not going to make me drive
all the way back to San Jose, are you?"  Heinlein said "Yes."

You don't have to talk to government agents -- even if they arrest you.
Saying "No" and "Go Away" is short and easy to say.  

>And above all else, beyond being
>symbolically defiant, I would first aim for being Real.   It can be the
hardest
>thing to do, stand your ground and be calm and real.

Just Say No.

DCF

What are those books?

igor

Duncan Frissell wrote:
> 
> 
> At 08:39 PM 12/3/98 -0800, Blanc wrote:
> >(Yes, but how do you actually respond to a real
> >live representative standing at your door (they showed me their Batches),
> to a
> >real-live situtation when you are taken to a little room and asked to strip
> >("asked"?) at the airport?)   
> 
> I was discussing this very question with the inamorata of a member of this
> list recently in San Jose.  We were trying to figure out why I knew
> instinctively what to say when confronted with government agents and she
> didn't (though she is an attorney).  I figured out that it was because I
> read Heinlein.  He taught a lot about how to respond to these things.
> Those who haven't read Heinlein (or don't learn from books) won't know what
> to say.  And in these high stress situations, answers which you have
> thought about in advance or conducted mental simulations with will come out
> more easily.  
> 
> You say - "Go away."  "Write me a letter."  "I only deal with government
> agents via my lawyer."  "Where's Your Warrant."  Or how about -- "My
> lawyer's name is X, I have officially informed you that I am represented by
> counsel and thus you cannot question me without counsel being present."
> 
> When they write a letter, you handle it the way Rumpole of the Baily
> handled those letters from the Inland Revenue.  You throw it away.
> 
> Some years ago at 5000 Bonny Doone Road Santa Cruz, CA an IRS agent rang
> the bell outside the gate in the fence of the reinforced concrete house
> owned by Robert Anson Heinlein.  He wanted to talk.  Heinlein said "go
> away" "write a letter."  The Agent said "you're not going to make me drive
> all the way back to San Jose, are you?"  Heinlein said "Yes."
> 
> You don't have to talk to government agents -- even if they arrest you.
> Saying "No" and "Go Away" is short and easy to say.  
> 
> >And above all else, beyond being
> >symbolically defiant, I would first aim for being Real.   It can be the
> hardest
> >thing to do, stand your ground and be calm and real.
> 
> Just Say No.
> 
> DCF
> 



	- Igor.

>There's a great deal of legal commentary in Heinlein. 

my favorite, from _The Number of the Beast_

the protagonists land in an alternate universe, a very nice
version of the US, a good safe haven.  there are no lawyers,
and all references to "The Year they Hung the Lawyers" have
been scrubbed from the readily available history books...



-landon (re-lurking)

At 11:02 AM 12/8/98 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
>What are those books?
>
>igor

Stranger In a Strange Land

"UN Secret Police breaking down door while Jubal contacts the Secretary
General via his astrologer."

Rocket Ship Galileo

"Launching before being served by court order -- see also 'The Man Who Sold
the Moon' and the movie 'Destination Moon'."

The Notebooks of Lazaraus Long

"Beware of strong drink.  It might make you shoot at tax collectors -- and
miss."

There's a great deal of legal commentary in Heinlein.  There are more
references where he comments on the need for warrants for searches.  It is
a very common theme in other right wing/libertarian SF as well.

DCF

"

Duncan Frissell wrote:
> 
> At 11:02 AM 12/8/98 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> >What are those books?
> >
> >igor
> 
> Stranger In a Strange Land
> 
> "UN Secret Police breaking down door while Jubal contacts the Secretary
> General via his astrologer."

Duncan,

I apologize for my ignorance. I am not very well aware of this Heinlein
fellow.

What I am looking for is a practical guide book on how to deal with
cops and other law enforcement/jackbooted thug types, in the manner
that minimizes my long term damage. Something along the lines of "You
and the Police!", by Boston T. Party, a book that I greatly enjoyed.

The ideal book would explain my rights, typical reactions of LE, 
precedents, some practical matters, dealing with hostile LE, etc etc.
Would be especially valuable to me as I am a foreigner.

What I am NOT looking for is something about UN troops hiding in
my backyard, choosing the best gun to shoot tax collectors, etc.

igor

> Rocket Ship Galileo
> 
> "Launching before being served by court order -- see also 'The Man Who Sold
> the Moon' and the movie 'Destination Moon'."
> 
> The Notebooks of Lazaraus Long
> 
> "Beware of strong drink.  It might make you shoot at tax collectors -- and
> miss."
> 
> There's a great deal of legal commentary in Heinlein.  There are more
> references where he comments on the need for warrants for searches.  It is
> a very common theme in other right wing/libertarian SF as well.
> 
> DCF
> 
> "
> 



	- Igor.

At 2:34 PM -0800 12/8/98, Jay Holovacs wrote:

>There is some general information about what to do if stopped by the police
>at the ACLU site:
>
>www.aclu.org
>
>In addition to the good advice that was given on this list to keep your
>mouth shut, I would like to comment on someone's earlier (several days ago)
>post. He had commented that the subject of spoofed messages came up in a
>discussion with an agent, and the agent asked about what this term meant.
>Don't let them draw you into such a discussion. They probably know damn
>well what these terms mean, they want to hear what you say they mean. You
>are being mind probed.
>
>Be polite, don't let them get you to say something angry or stupid, and say
>nothing more than civil response requires.

Not much you can say to them while standing out in the cold, in any case.

(Surely you will not invite them into your home! As we all know, anything
they happen to observe while doing a "wander through," even if on the way
to a seat, is usable for the purposes of obtaining a search warrant.)

I agree with Jay and others that attempting to "educate" them is a lost
cause...John Perry Barlow discovered this some years back when he was
interviewed by FBI agents over the Steve Jackson Games case (if I recall
the particulars correctly). Talking to them about particular list
personalities is _especially_ dangerous, as it helps them build whatever
case they've decided to build. "Anything you say can and will be used
against you."

If O.J. didn't have to talk, either to the police, the DA, or in court, why
should anyone else? (I know this does not encompass all witnesses, but it
captures the key idea of the Fifth for us here. Let them issue a subpoena.
And even then one may not have to talk.)

They haven't tried to talk to me...at least they haven't either gotten
through on my often-busy phone line nor have they driven out from Monterey
or San Jose to my semi-rural home.

I _hope_ I have the presence of mind to just tell them I won't be telling
them anything. Just nothing, not even jabber about a lawyer. Just nothing.
Maybe not even confirming my name...after all, I'm not driving and they
can't compell me to produce a driver's license.

I expect that if they stay around in my driveway, on my property, I'll call
out for them to leave. Beyond that they'd be trespassing.

If I slip up and say more, I'll try to swallow my pride and tell you all
just how badly I screwed up.

--Tim May

Y2K -- LMGALMAO -- Loading my guns and laughing my ass off
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.

At 12:07 PM 12/8/98 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

>What I am looking for is a practical guide book on how to deal with
>cops and other law enforcement/jackbooted thug types, in the manner
>that minimizes my long term damage. Something along the lines of "You
>and the Police!", by Boston T. Party, a book that I greatly enjoyed.

Well here's an article:

How to Break the Law

by Duncan Frissell

http://eastedge.neurospace.net/cyber/xanner/lawbreak.html

At 12:07 PM 12-8-98 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
>What I am looking for is a practical guide book on how to deal with
>cops and other law enforcement/jackbooted thug types, in the manner
>that minimizes my long term damage. Something along the lines of "You
>and the Police!", by Boston T. Party, a book that I greatly enjoyed.

BTW BTP has just come out with a Y2K book. It's a great read.

-Declan

Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> At 12:07 PM 12-8-98 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> >What I am looking for is a practical guide book on how to deal with
> >cops and other law enforcement/jackbooted thug types, in the manner
> >that minimizes my long term damage. Something along the lines of "You
> >and the Police!", by Boston T. Party, a book that I greatly enjoyed.
> 
> BTW BTP has just come out with a Y2K book. It's a great read.

Is it a useful book? BTP writings are always fun to read, but some of
his recommendations seem suspect.

	- Igor.

Well, if you're worried about worst-case scenarios (or variants on them)
it's as good as any and probably better than most. They've got everything
from gun tips to goat-raising.

I enjoyed it, FWIW. It doesn't make a pretense of saying what-if like a
bunch of the other books does: this says social unrest is damn near certain.

-Declan


At 03:13 PM 12-8-98 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
>Declan McCullagh wrote:
>> 
>> At 12:07 PM 12-8-98 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
>> >What I am looking for is a practical guide book on how to deal with
>> >cops and other law enforcement/jackbooted thug types, in the manner
>> >that minimizes my long term damage. Something along the lines of "You
>> >and the Police!", by Boston T. Party, a book that I greatly enjoyed.
>> 
>> BTW BTP has just come out with a Y2K book. It's a great read.
>
>Is it a useful book? BTP writings are always fun to read, but some of
>his recommendations seem suspect.
>
>	- Igor.
>

I have been told in email that the correct URL is http://www.hotwire.com/

(not the same as the wired digital site)

Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> Well, if you're worried about worst-case scenarios (or variants on them)
> it's as good as any and probably better than most. They've got everything
> from gun tips to goat-raising.
> 
> I enjoyed it, FWIW. It doesn't make a pretense of saying what-if like a
> bunch of the other books does: this says social unrest is damn near certain.

Alright, Declan, what is the title of the book, and better yet the
ISBN? Thank you.

igor

> -Declan
> 
> 
> At 03:13 PM 12-8-98 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> >Declan McCullagh wrote:
> >> 
> >> At 12:07 PM 12-8-98 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> >> >What I am looking for is a practical guide book on how to deal with
> >> >cops and other law enforcement/jackbooted thug types, in the manner
> >> >that minimizes my long term damage. Something along the lines of "You
> >> >and the Police!", by Boston T. Party, a book that I greatly enjoyed.
> >> 
> >> BTW BTP has just come out with a Y2K book. It's a great read.
> >
> >Is it a useful book? BTP writings are always fun to read, but some of
> >his recommendations seem suspect.
> >
> >	- Igor.
> > 
> 



	- Igor.

Boston on Surviving Y2K
By Boston T. Party
Common Law Copyright 1998 by Javelin Press
ISBN 1-888766-05-0
$22 softcover, $12.30 in bulk

I have seen a web site for this book, though don't have it bookmarked. Try
javelinpress.com.

-Declan


At 09:51 PM 12-8-98 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
>Declan McCullagh wrote:
>> 
>> Well, if you're worried about worst-case scenarios (or variants on them)
>> it's as good as any and probably better than most. They've got everything
>> from gun tips to goat-raising.
>> 
>> I enjoyed it, FWIW. It doesn't make a pretense of saying what-if like a
>> bunch of the other books does: this says social unrest is damn near
certain.
>
>Alright, Declan, what is the title of the book, and better yet the
>ISBN? Thank you.
>
>igor
>
>> -Declan
>> 
>> 
>> At 03:13 PM 12-8-98 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
>> >Declan McCullagh wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> At 12:07 PM 12-8-98 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
>> >> >What I am looking for is a practical guide book on how to deal with
>> >> >cops and other law enforcement/jackbooted thug types, in the manner
>> >> >that minimizes my long term damage. Something along the lines of "You
>> >> >and the Police!", by Boston T. Party, a book that I greatly enjoyed.
>> >> 
>> >> BTW BTP has just come out with a Y2K book. It's a great read.
>> >
>> >Is it a useful book? BTP writings are always fun to read, but some of
>> >his recommendations seem suspect.
>> >
>> >	- Igor.
>> > 
>> 
>
>
>
>	- Igor.
>

At 12:07 PM 12/8/98 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
>I apologize for my ignorance. I am not very well aware of this Heinlein
>fellow.
>
>What I am looking for is a practical guide book on how to deal with
>cops and other law enforcement/jackbooted thug types, in the manner
>that minimizes my long term damage. Something along the lines of "You
>and the Police!", by Boston T. Party, a book that I greatly enjoyed.
>
There is some general information about what to do if stopped by the police
at the ACLU site:

www.aclu.org

In addition to the good advice that was given on this list to keep your
mouth shut, I would like to comment on someone's earlier (several days ago)
post. He had commented that the subject of spoofed messages came up in a
discussion with an agent, and the agent asked about what this term meant.
Don't let them draw you into such a discussion. They probably know damn
well what these terms mean, they want to hear what you say they mean. You
are being mind probed.

Be polite, don't let them get you to say something angry or stupid, and say
nothing more than civil response requires.

Jay

At 03:56 PM 12/8/98 -0800, Tim May wrote:
>Not much you can say to them while standing out in the cold, in any case.
>(Surely you will not invite them into your home! 

It does somewhat resemble inviting vampires into your home,
in that it's a bad idea, they can do whatever they want when
they're there, and they won't leave until they feel like it.
On the other hand, vampires usually can't get search warrants,
while police usually can. :-)

A while back, maybe 5 years ago, I posted a copy of an article
called "Don't talk to cops" or "Don't talk to police",
which may still be in the archives somewhere.  
Its advice was somewhat New York State oriented, but applies
reasonably generally throughout the US for the case of
police coming to your home (car searches are different,
and vary far more by state.)

>Maybe not even confirming my name...after all, I'm not driving and they
>can't compell me to produce a driver's license.

Not true in California.  If you *possess* a California Driver's License, 
and have it on your person, and a California cop asks you to produce it, 
you are required to do so, even if you're not driving.  
You're not required to carry it if you're not driving,
but if you are carrying it, you've got to fork it over.
This may not apply if you're on your own property - I don't think that 
that variant has been tested in court.
But if you're on public property, you've got to provide it.

If you live in other states, it's worth knowing the local regs
about such things as well.

				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

From Greg Broiles:

: Just as a reasonable person will likely listen cautiously to an accused
: person proclaiming their innocence, a reasonable person should also listen
: cautiously when the prosecution proclaims someone's guilt.
..........................................


Thanks for the advice, it hadn't occurred to me they might be spoofing. <g>

(On a piece of paper they asked me to write down some of the statements I made
regarding my limited association with Toto (for the record, in lieu of a court
appearance), and asked that I also explain what I mean by "spoofing", as I had
thus described what Toto might have been up to with those incendiary messages.)

To their credit, I will say that they only told me more about Toto's activities
during the course of our discussions regarding the point in time when someone is
likely to be arrested based on their public expressions.   They related that
Toto had sent numerous threatening messages to the Mounties, and that although
he had alarming info out on his website that was not a problem; that they took
action only after he actually planted a bomb in one of their buildings.  Then
when I asked them as to why he was being tried in this area, rather than Canada
or Texas or Arizona, they brought up that Toto had threatened the judge trying
Jim's case (and also his other email regarding Billg).

At least they were not offensive, but polite and pleasant, but it's true one
should keep one's mind on the facts - the pertinent facts, the pertinence *of*
the facts, and no other facts.   I myself, of course, would never lie.  Unless I
had to. : )

"Well, it depends on what your definition of  'is'  is . . . "  What a great
Leader, and a Lawyer, showing us how to deal with the Law.

   ..
Blanc

At 5:42 PM -0500 12/3/98, Tim May wrote:
>
>If they want me to speak about assassination markets, the need for killing
>millions of political criminals, and the use of anonymous systems for
>smashing the state, why would I ever agree to speak with cops?

	I think millions is overstating things just a little bit, unless
you mean world wide.
--
"To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a
jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a product: (a) of a
gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather nave, and certainly
unrealistic, economic theories." Alan Greenspan, "Anti-trust"
http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html

Petro::E-Commerce Adminstrator::Playboy Ent. Inc.::petro@playboy.com

At 9:42 PM -0500 12/3/98, Tim May wrote:
>At 3:13 PM -0800 12/3/98, Petro wrote:
>>At 5:42 PM -0500 12/3/98, Tim May wrote:
>>>
>>>If they want me to speak about assassination markets, the need for killing
>>>millions of political criminals, and the use of anonymous systems for
>>>smashing the state, why would I ever agree to speak with cops?
>>
>>	I think millions is overstating things just a little bit, unless
>>you mean world wide.
>
>Those of who have voted to take away guns, those who have actually done the
>taking away, those who have sent in JBTs to break into homes, those who
>have ....
>
>It adds up fast. Whatever the precise total is, removing them is what
>crypto anarchy and untraceable transactions make possible. Read about this
>is my Cyphernomicon, released long before Jim Bell had his "wonderful idea."

	Yeah, yeah, I've read parts of it. I've been here a while under
different email addresses, so I'm more than a little familiar with the
whole crypto-anarchy thing.

	I just disagree with your "millions who need killing". Because some
beleives in a polly-annaish world were taking guns away from the "good
guys" also keeps them away from the "bad guys" is no reason to kill them.
It's a reason to render them impotent until such time as they wake the hell
up, and if they don't manage to wake the hell up until some mugger points a
chinese manufactured .25 at them in the middle of the night and just
fucking pulls the trigger because murder carries the same punishment (or
less) than carrying a gun (enemy of the state) then "we" didn't kill them,
they killed themselves.

	It's the leaders, the Guys In The Three Peice Suits that need the
killing. The KNOW better. They have the information, they have the studies.
They choose to manipulate people, to feed their fears and _tell_ them that
disarming them is making them safer.

	They lie, and in lieing reduce the saftey of ALL of us. For that
they deserve to hang.
--
Five seconds later, I'm getting the upside of 15Kv across the nipples.
(These ambulance guys sure know how to party).
The Ideal we strive for: http://www.iinet.net.au/~bofh/bofh/bofh11.html
No, I don't speak for playboy, They wouldn't like that. They really wouldn't.

At 1:00 PM -0500 12/4/98, Tim May wrote:
>At 7:04 AM -0800 12/4/98, Petro wrote:
>
>>	I just disagree with your "millions who need killing". Because some
>>beleives in a polly-annaish world were taking guns away from the "good
>>guys" also keeps them away from the "bad guys" is no reason to kill them.
>>It's a reason to render them impotent until such time as they wake the hell
>>up, and if they don't manage to wake the hell up until some mugger points a
>>chinese manufactured .25 at them in the middle of the night and just
>>fucking pulls the trigger because murder carries the same punishment (or
>>less) than carrying a gun (enemy of the state) then "we" didn't kill them,
>>they killed themselves.
>
>You are free to adopt the beliefs of what I'll call "the forgiveness
>libertarians." Summarized, roughly, as:
>"You've been stealing from me, sending my sons to die in your foreign wars,
>imprisoning my friends for what they smoke or eat...but let's let bygones
>be bygones...stop your stealing ways and we'll forget about what you did in
>the past."

	You are (it seems) slightly misinterpreting what I am trying to say.

	The average individual, Joe Six-pack, doesn't start wars. He
doesn't actually imprison anyone (unless he is a cop), and he doesn't
(usually) vote for the laws that actually imprison people.

	In most cases he doesn't even vote at all. He is pawn, at most a
peice to be sacrificed.

	It's the Kings and Queens that are the problem (and to carry the
analogy further, the hand[s] that move them) that really diserve our
anomosity.

	The politicians, and not even all of them, should be the targest of
"our" ire.
>This is a dominant thread of libertarianism, though it is seldom
>articulated as I have just done. Look at the platform of the Libertarian
>Party and you'll see this "forget the past, look to the future" approach.

	That is because the Libertarians are trying to join the football
game, and to even be in the game, you have to be pleasant.

>I, on the other hand, have drifted into the camp I will dub "the vengeance
>libertarians." Summarized, roughly, as:
>
>"You've stolen my property, you've imprisoned my friends, you've passed
>laws making us all criminals, you've started wars to enrich your
>military-industrial complex friends, and you're corrupt bastards. You can
>forget about some kind of "libertarian amnesty." It's going to be payback
>time, with at least hundreds of thousands of statist judges, politicians,
>cops, soldiers, and other such persons going to the gallows. Payback time.
>Welfare recipients are going to have to pay back all that they have stolen,
>with compounded interest. Out of their pockets, or while in labor camps.
>Payback time."

	Which would be more satisfying to you, to shoot these people
(personally I'm in favor of hangings, the ropes are not only a reusable
resource, but afterwords we put them in glass cases in museums around the
nation/world as permanent reminders of what _will_ happen when the people
get pissed enough), or to watch them starve to death as most of them have
no useful talents outside their ability to sway the population to their
will?
--
"To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a
jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a product: (a) of a
gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather nave, and certainly
unrealistic, economic theories." Alan Greenspan, "Anti-trust"
http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html

Petro::E-Commerce Adminstrator::Playboy Ent. Inc.::petro@playboy.com

At 02:42 PM 12/3/98 -0800, Tim May wrote:

>It seems to me that when you invite them in for cookies and tea and have a
>"pleasant" conversation with them, you are only helping to put away Toto.
>Whatever you tell them, they will almost certainly only use the negative
>things you tell them. Or the general knowledge you give them, or contact
>lists, etc.
>
>I have not been contacted by either American or Canadian cops with regard
>to either Jim Bell or Toto. I _hope_ I will have the presence of mind to
>tell them to leave.

The opening of  "HOW TO BREAK THE LAW"

By Duncan Frissell 

For a fair number of readers, the day may come when the men in the funny
suits walk up to you, ask if you are you, and then exercise their power of
arrest. For those without much experience in getting arrested, let me tell
you what in general it will be like (details may vary). 

But first let's review arrest etiquette. Arrest etiquette can be
complicated for the arresting officers but it is easy for the arrestee.
There are only two rules: 1) Keep your mouth shut and 2) Cooperate
physically with the arrest. Following rule two will help preserve your
kidneys, limbs, and skull but following rule one is the most important. 

During the first two years after your arrest, there are only four words
that you should speak to minions of the State in an official capacity: 

"I want a lawyer" 

Say nothing else. You gain NO benefits by saying things to the cops and the
prosecutors for free. If your lawyer cuts a deal for you, you can talk in
exchange for something but once you speak you can't take the words back.
Lawyers are constantly amazed and entertained by the things their clients
tell the cops. Don't say anything. It's stupid. 


DCF

>From Duncan Frissell:

: The opening of  "HOW TO BREAK THE LAW"
:
: By Duncan Frissell
:
: For a fair number of readers, the day may come when the men
: in the funny suits walk up to you, ask if you are you, and then exercise
: their power of arrest. For those without much experience in getting
: arrested, let me tell you what in general it will be like (details may vary).
.............................................


Been waiting for that book, Duncan.  Need any help?  : )

   ..
Blanc

On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Blanc wrote:

> (On a piece of paper they asked me to write down some of the statements I made
> regarding my limited association with Toto (for the record, in lieu of a court
> appearance)

My evidence books are packed in a moving box (sigh) at the moment, so
please take this with a grain of salt, but the only reason I see to ask
you to write anything down is to use it against you, either as a witness
or as a defendant. Your written statement is considered hearsay and
wouldn't be admissible at Toto's trial .. unless the prosecution was using
it to impeach you in the event that you testified, in which case it would
be admissible solely for the purpose of making you look like a liar. (If
the statement also tends to cast Toto in a poor light, the prosecution
probably won't lose any sleep over the spillover effects on the jury.)

If either side in a trial (especially a criminal trial) thinks you've got
something useful to say, they're going to need to put you on the witness
stand in front of the jury/judge and let you make your statements, and be
cross-examined, in person. Statements made out of court won't be
admissible to prove the truth of the matter they're discussing, unless the
situation happens to fit into one of a series of narrow exceptions.

One of the biggest exceptions is called "statements made by the opposing
party", aka "statements by the defendant" in a criminal trial. Another is
to impeach a witness with a prior inconsistent statement, where the prior
statement is inconsistent with their testimony at trial.

It smells like a setup to me.

--
Greg Broiles
gbroiles@netbox.com

At 09:22 PM 12/2/98 -0800, you wrote:
> From Greg Broiles:
>
>: Just as a reasonable person will likely listen cautiously to an accused
>: person proclaiming their innocence, a reasonable person should also listen
>: cautiously when the prosecution proclaims someone's guilt.
>..........................................
>
>
>Thanks for the advice, it hadn't occurred to me they might be spoofing. <g>
>
>(On a piece of paper they asked me to write down some of the statements I
made
>regarding my limited association with Toto (for the record, in lieu of a
court
>appearance), and asked that I also explain what I mean by "spoofing", as I
had
>thus described what Toto might have been up to with those incendiary
messages.)
>
>To their credit, I will say that they only told me more about Toto's
activities
>during the course of our discussions regarding the point in time when
someone is
>likely to be arrested based on their public expressions.   They related that
>Toto had sent numerous threatening messages to the Mounties, and that
although
>he had alarming info out on his website that was not a problem; that they
took
>action only after he actually planted a bomb in one of their buildings.  Then
>when I asked them as to why he was being tried in this area, rather than
Canada
>or Texas or Arizona, they brought up that Toto had threatened the judge
trying
>Jim's case (and also his other email regarding Billg).
>

You speak as if these are facts. When was the trial? When was it proven
that CJ=Toto (or at least a significant portion of Toto)? When was it
proven that CJ or Toto planted a bomb or threatened a judge? When is
something true just because some MIB says so?!?!?

You have jumped to so many conclusions that I'm astonished that you didn't
just jump in and offer to help string him up yourself! Maybe you did,
deliberately or unintentionally.

COPS LIE!!! FBI agents LIE!!! IRS agents LIE!!! That's why we have a
justice system that was intended to make them PROVE what they say. 

>At least they were not offensive, but polite and pleasant, but it's true one
>should keep one's mind on the facts - the pertinent facts, the pertinence
*of*
>the facts, and no other facts.   I myself, of course, would never lie.
Unless I
>had to. : )
>

"Here little girl, I have some candy for you..." But he was so NICE...

>"Well, it depends on what your definition of  'is'  is . . . "  What a great
>Leader, and a Lawyer, showing us how to deal with the Law.
>

Your BEST defense against them is always to make them demonstrate what they
believe to be true. DON'T tell them anything. If what they say was really
true (now this is important...) AND YOU are not a suspect then they don't
need to talk to you, they already have proof. I'll put that another way...
They talked to you because 1) they still don't have a case, and/or 2) YOU
are a suspect!

APF

Blanc wrote:

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

[...]

> I discovered things that I didn't know about Toto's situation:
> that he had sent threatening letters to the Mounties, and that he had threated
> to kill the judge trying Jim's case.

I guess investigators have to take such things seriously, that's their job. I
believe CJ was just trying to establish dialogue with *authority* figures, real or
imagined, to satisfy a selfish need for aggrandizement. Well, he got his wish and it
swallowed him whole. May the saints preserve him.[...]

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

Constitutionally guaranteed concepts can be novel and quite interesting.