Ond 12/09/2000, Ray Dillinger wrote:
It is illegal in Georgia, and a number of other Southern states of the
US, to appear in public wearing a mask.
Not that it's usually enforced on anybody but the Ku Klux Klan.
Dunno about other countries and other states.
In "Church of the American
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 10:06:03PM +0100, Anonymous wrote:
I was unable to locate any other states with statutes addressing "mask
wearing" in public (without intent to commit burglary). No doubt the rest
of the offending rules are ordinances instead.
Also see 18 USC 242 and 42 USC 1985
PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: Masks [was: Re: About 5yr. log retention]
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 10:06:03PM +0100, Anonymous wrote:
I was unable to locate any other states with statutes addressing "mask
wearing" in public (with
Anonymous [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oklahoma has a state statute prohibiting mask wearing (note the
exceptions):
ยง 1301. Masks and hoods--Unlawful to wear--Exceptions
It shall be unlawful for any person in this state to wear a mask, hood
or covering, which conceals the identity of the
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Vogt" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[re: Muslim women in vail, uncovering]
that would be interesting to watch. for those people, the
"masquerade" is NON optional, and - as I understand it
- they simply can't give in. contrary to all the internet
privacy,
where we
Jim Choate blindly wrote:
What law?
The law was quoted just below the citation we provided:
18 USC 2703(f).
The news report quotation exactly matches what the law
says about preservation. Not that you'll read it but here it is again:
Here's the source for news story report about data
Title: RE: About 5yr. log retention
Thanks for the cite, I was just about to stir it up. Anyone still want to see an example order?
ok,
Rush
-Original Message-
From: John Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 8:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re
Jim Choate wrote :
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, John Young wrote:
But that is trivial compared to your claim that you decide what is
evidence
and that it then becomes illegal to alter or destroy it. That appears
to be
playing cop without the authority.
No John, that is not my claim. You wish it were
