Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI
In a message dated 3/24/2004 2:02:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, the point is, as Duncan Frissell has always said on this list, when confronted with cops of any kind, shut up, and lawyer up. Period. I don't say Jack to any government worker, even the Census poller...When it comes to Apparatchiks of the police state I'm unreachable. I do pay my taxes and participate in my state's driver license requirements...so the reality is that I do talk with government workers, albeit they do have a gun to my head. In general you have nothing to gain by speaking to the Police or assorted Fedgoons, so don't. Regards, Matt-
Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI
In a message dated 3/24/2004 2:02:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, the point is, as Duncan Frissell has always said on this list, when confronted with cops of any kind, shut up, and lawyer up. Period. I don't say Jack to any government worker, even the Census poller...When it comes to Apparatchiks of the police state I'm unreachable. I do pay my taxes and participate in my state's driver license requirements...so the reality is that I do talk with government workers, albeit they do have a gun to my head. In general you have nothing to gain by speaking to the Police or assorted Fedgoons, so don't. Regards, Matt-
Re: Max's Lesson (was Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI)
At 9:30 PM -0500 3/24/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JUSTICE? Yawn. Plonk... Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Re: Max's Lesson (was Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI)
Max wrote... I mean, The Just-Us system's only be for us peasants, right, massah?. Nice little lick there. I also think that some cypherpunks mistake the Corporate State for what has been described as Crypto-Anarchy. If large corporations in the US and the wealthy happen to ultimately drive the current roundup of civil rights, then they've effectively become the state that some Cypherpunks some vehemently despise. Pointing this out (or at least making the case that this is the state of affairs) should not by any means be equated with socialism (unless of course you actually believe the socialists who maintain this is an inherent byproduct of capitalism). In fact, it's easy to argue that the current Oil Crusade in Iraq is precisely for the purpose of protecting a set of dinosaur industries in the US. That's not the kind of capitalism I think most Cypherpunks espouse. -TD From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Max's Lesson (was Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:30:17 -0500 [snide preposterous presumptions deleted to save space] In response to R. A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I did not in any way or form, either explicitly much less implicitly, make any claim for the expropriation of money from wealthy persons in any form, much less by the state. Much as you'd like to presume that I am just some socialist and rant on from there; Whatever you feel you must do to avoid the point. The point was that there are a thousand other injustices, such as civil asset forfeiture, which effect and have been effecting people of all economic strata for over a decade now (and a lot of other governmental connivances, such as RICO anti-racketeering, and drug prohibition, from which it was spawned). Things that routinely effect not just the Martha Stewarts, or the so-called investor class. Things from which spring forth the presumptive powers which now also threaten the investor class, who had not resisted earlier and deeper erosions of their civil liberties. Things about which the wealthy (and politicians) don't give a rats ass about, because they are a privileged class, by and large, and the laws generally are not applied equally to them as to others. So why should they care? Until one of them has to take a fairly minor fall, and then it's crocodile tears, and poor Martha! Oh the injustice of it all! Screaming meamies, that oh God, how dare they apply the same laws against the wealthy they have been abusing the peasants and workers with all these years?! The travesty of it! You see, people like you only have a problem when you can't buy your way out of trouble. I mean, The Just-Us system's only be for us peasants, right, massah?. Martha is just a token sacrifice for appearances sake, to appease the masses and protect the status quo from any serious reform. So Martha goes to Club Fed for a short stint, and business basically goes on as usual. Is it Justice? Nah, Just-Us.. maybe, especially if it maintains the privilege system intact and beyond serious scrutiny or reform. It is rather telling that you have completely sidestepped anything I mentioned (aside from making false assumptions). At 05:49 PM 3/24/2004, , R. A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, Max, as a socialist, an unwitting user of such lies as movement, or (un)just state, as someone who believes that the *earned* property of the rich should be confiscated, or that There we go with nonsensical presumptions and stereotyping again. I could pull out my own label for you my friend, but that would be really pointless. I believe that earned property of ANY strata of society should be safe from arbitrary seizure or confiscation. It is rather amusing how you have put words in my mouth which are not there, and then spend all your time kicking down your own non-existant straw man. You want to mock justness of the laws of the State...? Well then, what is your beef about Martha then? If the state is inherently a manifestation of unjust cronyism (as you seem to claim), does that become an argument that somehow we should NOT strive to make the system MORE uniformly just and therefore abuse of power less common and arbitrary? I mean, that's just the way it is... but then, you shouldn't be whining about poor Martha. That's just the way States are, you know. But I guess we come back to the double standard, and as long as the wealth exemption comes into play, then you really don't concern yourself with such an inherently socialist (as you might say) concept as JUSTICE? marketing should be controlled by force, welcome to the other side of the looking glass. The *real* side of the looking glass, I might add, where the justice of the state is simply another not-so-polite fiction to keep power. Alas, you were so quick to falsely label me a socialist, that you did not read what I wrote. Needless to say, I in no way called for any
Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI
Well, Obvously, the policeman is NOT your friend. However (not to excuse, only to point out the reality): Most people in general, are spineless sheep, easily cowed by anybody in a suit-badge combo. I have nothing to say and let THEM prove whatever it is they are trying to frame you for. About Martha, and various and sundry poor little plutocrats, I have to wonder why many passionate little people who are struggling to get by, and ALSO fighting to maintain their civil liberties should really take that much pity or concern, any moreso than when some unconnected, non-rich person routinely gets railroaded and immolated by the daily affronts of abusive government. I mean, if Martha and Co. are REALLY so concerned about how they are/have been treated, then perhaps they ought to put a least a little MONEY behind the civil liberties movement at whatever level of their choice. I mean if rich people are so smart and superior (as self-evidenced by their ability to attain wealth), then how come they are not generally smart enough to NOT be further strengthening the schemes of the State to disenfranchise all OUR rights--including their own!? And if it's not a question of smart-stupid, but priority (like greed is king, and fuck everything/everyone else) well, then again, why have any sympathy for them. These are the people that finance and strengthen the State when it suits them. The so-called rich believe in the system, strengthen it, support it. So it's just pudding when the unjust state gives them a taste of what everyone else from middle class on down suffers everyday. You leave too many large guns laying around, don't cry when you get shot by one of them. Us 'po civil libertarians fight this crap everyday, and we don't get paid for it, and we give in the way of logic and arguments and tactics because we don't have much money, fighting against the shit-tide of brainwashing telling us to BUY! and that everything's just Fine and couldn't be finer. Maybe it's time for the moneypots to ante up some. I mean, why should the average Joe divert attention from other civil liberties causes to protect these poor plutocrats when they trip themselves up. There are a billion other issues, equally important if not moreso, which affect many more people day to day via state sanctioned inequity. -Max At 02:01 PM 3/24/2004, R. A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, to prevent yourself from lying to the feds for any reason whatsoever, don't talk to them. If they insist, have your lawyer talk to them. If they subpoena you as a witness, or depose you, at least you're talking in open court, or at least with witnesses, transcription, and video tape running, and your lawyer's there to keep them from twisting your words around so much. Which, obviously, was my point. Not some crypto-(emphasis, apparently, on crypto-)leveller prestilog in Youngrish about how evil rich people are. :-). Plutocracy, um, rules, RAH
Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI
At 10:28 AM -0800 3/24/04, Major Variola (ret) wrote: Because she got charged with *lying* to a fed when she was *not* under oath. So, the point is, as Duncan Frissell has always said on this list, when confronted with cops of any kind, shut up, and lawyer up. Period. I expect you can be nice and all when talking to them, in fact they're nicer to you that way, less like to, um, tune you up :-), but the point around here has always been, and as now demonstrated, with feds in particular, if they merely *accuse* you of lying, you can go to jail, and they don't have to do much to prove it. As the Martha case shows, all they have to do is write down that they *thought* you were lying to them, and you could very well end up in jail. So, to prevent yourself from lying to the feds for any reason whatsoever, don't talk to them. If they insist, have your lawyer talk to them. If they subpoena you as a witness, or depose you, at least you're talking in open court, or at least with witnesses, transcription, and video tape running, and your lawyer's there to keep them from twisting your words around so much. Which, obviously, was my point. Not some crypto-(emphasis, apparently, on crypto-)leveller prestilog in Youngrish about how evil rich people are. :-). Plutocracy, um, rules, RAH Sometimes prose-poetry is prose-poetry. Other times, it's just a pain in the ass. -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI
Its a sign of John's early Alzheimers, when he lets his wealthwrath get in the way of his one-time pristine appreciation of civil liberties. Well, I don't know Variola...I don't actually see much in that post that violates that. In fact, kinda sheds some light on what might have triggered this particular violation. If she's going to start rubbing elbows with the Old Money like she always wanted then she can't be attracting a lot of attention. I would not be suprised one bit to find out some suggestions were made...toss the public a token psuedo-WASP so they won't think the Sandy Weils and Dennis Kozlowskis are being unfairly targeted... At least it's food for thought, even if you puke it up. -TD From: Major Variola (ret) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:37:58 -0800 At 09:38 AM 3/24/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: Gotta say that's a nice, high-grade no-baby-powder rant Mr Young. Worthy of an East Coast Collectivist... Its a sign of John's early Alzheimers, when he lets his wealthwrath get in the way of his one-time pristine appreciation of civil liberties. -- The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. Thos. Jefferson _ Find a broadband plan that fits. Great local deals on high-speed Internet access. https://broadband.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/
Max's Lesson (was Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At 2:30 PM -0500 3/24/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: movement bZZZT. -10 pts., Hackneyed Socialist Cliche. unjust state Bzzt. -10 pts., Bad grammar. Redundant phrase. eat the rich... Bzzt. -20 pts., Innumeracy, Economic ignorance. marketing is evil and must be controlled Bzzt. -20 pts., Totalitarian will to power. ...I think we'll stop there, in the interests of, um, intellectual charity... Score: 40/100. F. Game over. Thank you for playing, Max. And now for a little post-mortem, shall we? It's all about property, Max. You know, the stuff you *earned* by personally altering reality to such a favorable degree that other people to *pay* you to keep you doing it? It's also about freedom. You don't get freedom, from god, or from laws, or from movements, or a just state, or any*body* else. You get freedom by defending *yourself*. Your *self*, Max. *All* states, Max, are about taking your money at the point of a weapon of some sort. They're *all* unjust, just like the theocracy of the dark ages was irrational and innumerate. Of course, life isn't fair, much less just. But, in the particular case of states, we pay force-monopolists because they will, ultimately, kill us if we don't. OTOH, if states kill us all, they won't have anyone to steal from, preventing their market from achieving equilibrium. :-). Martha, of course, is, politically, culturally, the epitome of hypocritical, liberal-socialist scum. However, the laws (virtually unpromulgated, and certainly unlegislated regulations, not actual laws; doesn't keep them from sending you to jail, of course, but they weren't legislated: there are too many of them to vote on, for starters...) they were *trying* to convict her on were completely ridiculous in their intent and evil in their consequence. First off, information, like money, is fungible. It is *impossible* to keep information, insider, or any other kind, out of the price of an asset. The minute that information is credible and known to *anyone* insider or not, the price of the asset will begin to reflect that information, if only by insiders not *buying* that asset. In fact, a *moral* argument can be made that restraint of that information is more fraud than trading on that information to begin with. Morally -- if morality caused markets and not the other way around :-) -- insiders should be *obligated* to trade on inside information as soon as they believe that information to be true. Call it financial Calvinism, kinda like Tim's saying he's morally prohibited from helping liberals, and the otherwise-damned :-), achieve their own salvation. Think about it this way: the crime of insider trading didn't exist until 1962. We've *always* had capital markets, of one form or another, and insider trading, in *every* civilization, since the first agricultural surplus was put into a grain bank and exchanged for goods and services. It is impossible, I would claim, to have civilization without capital markets. Even Stalin -- especially Stalin -- had to have recourse to capital markets to stay in business. Go read up on a guy named Ludwig von Mises, and pay particular attention to the words calculate and prices, and the impossibility of using both in a meaningful, logical, sentence, and you'll figure out what happened to Stalin's successors. Mancur Olsen's Power and Prosperity wouldn't hurt either. The fact that the most plutographic, nepotist, crypto-aristocratic liberal political dynasty in this country's history made its seed-money first on bootlegging, but, most importantly, on pre-market-crash 1920's insider trading, and that the progenitor of that dynasty was, later, the first Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, speaks more to the folly, if not actual evil, of capital market regulation, much less insider trading, than anything I could say here. Finally, if you're stupid enough to believe marketing, you deserve to buy what they sell you. Hell, if you're happy doing so, it's nobody's business but yours. Your property is your property. Trade it for what makes you happy. Just don't pass another goddamn law. Please. Physics causes Politics, not the other way around. Change reality, write code, discover a new market, whatever, and the law will change accordingly. Change reality enough, and maybe we won't need law to enforce, say, the non-repudiation characteristics of our transactions, and people like Martha, god forbid, won't go to jail because nobody will *know* whether someone used inside information or not. So, Max, I hate to break it to you, but you seem to be a socialist, to use the more pleasant of several pejoratives. Not the end of the world, you probably don't call yourself one, and you may not even know you are, because socialism is about as ubiquitous today as theocracy was a thousand years ago. As Perry Metzger noted somewhere else a little while ago, back then one was either in favor of God, or the
Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 04:01:55PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: Its a sign of John's early Alzheimers, when he lets his wealthwrath get in the way of his one-time pristine appreciation of civil liberties. Well, I don't know Variola...I don't actually see much in that post that violates that. In fact, kinda sheds some light on what might have triggered this particular violation. If she's going to start rubbing elbows with the Old Money like she always wanted then she can't be attracting a lot of attention. I would not be suprised one bit to find out some suggestions were made...toss the public a token psuedo-WASP so they won't think the Sandy Weils and Dennis Kozlowskis are being unfairly targeted... Nah, Martha got busted primarily because she was a woman and did so well that she pissed off the good ol' boys -- and they had to put her in her place, barefoot and in the kitchen. Otherwise, an example like Martha -- my god, who knows what women might do next? I'll stop believing this when Kenny-Boy goes to jail. Or actually, considering the humoungous difference of level of harm -- gets executed. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
RE: Max's Lesson (was Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI)
In fact, a *moral* argument can be made that restraint of that information is more fraud than trading on that information to begin with. Morally -- if morality caused markets and not the other way around :-) -- insiders should be *obligated* to trade on inside information as soon as they believe that information to be true. To some extent this is already touted as a long-term issue here on Wall Street. The biggest example is when one company is doing due diligence when contemplating a purchase of another. During that process that have a (legal) level of access to information that does not exist elsewhere. During that time, then, they have the info-advantage that can be directly exploited during the deal and that causes bizarre pricing. As I've said before, if we had a true blacknet, where even options could be traded, then no deal would ever suffer from the advantage of hidden info...they'd all be priced far more fairly, and the little 401K retirees would actually benefit greatly. As for the notion of a state being INHERENTLY evil, I'm still not convinced. At least, if I WANT to be butt-humped by the state, then it's OK, right? -TD From: R. A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Max's Lesson (was Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:49:48 -0500 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At 2:30 PM -0500 3/24/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: movement bZZZT. -10 pts., Hackneyed Socialist Cliche. unjust state Bzzt. -10 pts., Bad grammar. Redundant phrase. eat the rich... Bzzt. -20 pts., Innumeracy, Economic ignorance. marketing is evil and must be controlled Bzzt. -20 pts., Totalitarian will to power. ...I think we'll stop there, in the interests of, um, intellectual charity... Score: 40/100. F. Game over. Thank you for playing, Max. And now for a little post-mortem, shall we? It's all about property, Max. You know, the stuff you *earned* by personally altering reality to such a favorable degree that other people to *pay* you to keep you doing it? It's also about freedom. You don't get freedom, from god, or from laws, or from movements, or a just state, or any*body* else. You get freedom by defending *yourself*. Your *self*, Max. *All* states, Max, are about taking your money at the point of a weapon of some sort. They're *all* unjust, just like the theocracy of the dark ages was irrational and innumerate. Of course, life isn't fair, much less just. But, in the particular case of states, we pay force-monopolists because they will, ultimately, kill us if we don't. OTOH, if states kill us all, they won't have anyone to steal from, preventing their market from achieving equilibrium. :-). Martha, of course, is, politically, culturally, the epitome of hypocritical, liberal-socialist scum. However, the laws (virtually unpromulgated, and certainly unlegislated regulations, not actual laws; doesn't keep them from sending you to jail, of course, but they weren't legislated: there are too many of them to vote on, for starters...) they were *trying* to convict her on were completely ridiculous in their intent and evil in their consequence. First off, information, like money, is fungible. It is *impossible* to keep information, insider, or any other kind, out of the price of an asset. The minute that information is credible and known to *anyone* insider or not, the price of the asset will begin to reflect that information, if only by insiders not *buying* that asset. In fact, a *moral* argument can be made that restraint of that information is more fraud than trading on that information to begin with. Morally -- if morality caused markets and not the other way around :-) -- insiders should be *obligated* to trade on inside information as soon as they believe that information to be true. Call it financial Calvinism, kinda like Tim's saying he's morally prohibited from helping liberals, and the otherwise-damned :-), achieve their own salvation. Think about it this way: the crime of insider trading didn't exist until 1962. We've *always* had capital markets, of one form or another, and insider trading, in *every* civilization, since the first agricultural surplus was put into a grain bank and exchanged for goods and services. It is impossible, I would claim, to have civilization without capital markets. Even Stalin -- especially Stalin -- had to have recourse to capital markets to stay in business. Go read up on a guy named Ludwig von Mises, and pay particular attention to the words calculate and prices, and the impossibility of using both in a meaningful, logical, sentence, and you'll figure out what happened to Stalin's successors. Mancur Olsen's Power and Prosperity wouldn't hurt either. The fact that the most plutographic, nepotist, crypto-aristocratic liberal political dynasty in this country's history made its seed-money first on bootlegging, but, most importantly, on pre-market-crash 1920's insider trading
Re: Max's Lesson (was Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI)
[snide preposterous presumptions deleted to save space] In response to R. A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I did not in any way or form, either explicitly much less implicitly, make any claim for the expropriation of money from wealthy persons in any form, much less by the state. Much as you'd like to presume that I am just some socialist and rant on from there; Whatever you feel you must do to avoid the point. The point was that there are a thousand other injustices, such as civil asset forfeiture, which effect and have been effecting people of all economic strata for over a decade now (and a lot of other governmental connivances, such as RICO anti-racketeering, and drug prohibition, from which it was spawned). Things that routinely effect not just the Martha Stewarts, or the so-called investor class. Things from which spring forth the presumptive powers which now also threaten the investor class, who had not resisted earlier and deeper erosions of their civil liberties. Things about which the wealthy (and politicians) don't give a rats ass about, because they are a privileged class, by and large, and the laws generally are not applied equally to them as to others. So why should they care? Until one of them has to take a fairly minor fall, and then it's crocodile tears, and poor Martha! Oh the injustice of it all! Screaming meamies, that oh God, how dare they apply the same laws against the wealthy they have been abusing the peasants and workers with all these years?! The travesty of it! You see, people like you only have a problem when you can't buy your way out of trouble. I mean, The Just-Us system's only be for us peasants, right, massah?. Martha is just a token sacrifice for appearances sake, to appease the masses and protect the status quo from any serious reform. So Martha goes to Club Fed for a short stint, and business basically goes on as usual. Is it Justice? Nah, Just-Us.. maybe, especially if it maintains the privilege system intact and beyond serious scrutiny or reform. It is rather telling that you have completely sidestepped anything I mentioned (aside from making false assumptions). At 05:49 PM 3/24/2004, , R. A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, Max, as a socialist, an unwitting user of such lies as movement, or (un)just state, as someone who believes that the *earned* property of the rich should be confiscated, or that There we go with nonsensical presumptions and stereotyping again. I could pull out my own label for you my friend, but that would be really pointless. I believe that earned property of ANY strata of society should be safe from arbitrary seizure or confiscation. It is rather amusing how you have put words in my mouth which are not there, and then spend all your time kicking down your own non-existant straw man. You want to mock justness of the laws of the State...? Well then, what is your beef about Martha then? If the state is inherently a manifestation of unjust cronyism (as you seem to claim), does that become an argument that somehow we should NOT strive to make the system MORE uniformly just and therefore abuse of power less common and arbitrary? I mean, that's just the way it is... but then, you shouldn't be whining about poor Martha. That's just the way States are, you know. But I guess we come back to the double standard, and as long as the wealth exemption comes into play, then you really don't concern yourself with such an inherently socialist (as you might say) concept as JUSTICE? marketing should be controlled by force, welcome to the other side of the looking glass. The *real* side of the looking glass, I might add, where the justice of the state is simply another not-so-polite fiction to keep power. Alas, you were so quick to falsely label me a socialist, that you did not read what I wrote. Needless to say, I in no way called for any such forceful control of marketing as you inventively and deceptively implied. Not to worry, I try to buy as little meaningless shit as possible from this disposable vacuous society. But at the same time, I encourage people to see the emptiness for what it is. The things you own end up owning you, and it can all blow away in a storm faster than you realize (therefore, governments and insurance). Bread and circuses is a sure signpost on the way down, we've seen it before. Avoid facing reality long enough, and the head kick of reality will be that much more forceful when it finally comes. Like chickens coming home to roost.. kind of like what we are currently experiencing... but I digress... Hanging out on this list is a sure cure for such mental delusions. It worked for me, anyway. :-). Worry not, that I have no delusions that this System in any way represents me, much less has the slightest concerns about civil liberties or any of the foundational concepts upon which this country was philosophically based, much less the most basic sense
Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI
Major Variola (ret) (2004-03-24 18:28Z) wrote: The only reason to speak to feds or cold-calling police is counter intel, learn what they're interested in. And then publish that. That is a very dangerous game, but it may soon become the only option. It's only a matter of time before remaining silent will constitute a problem too. What are the Vegas odds on Hiibel? Anyone have a transcript of oral arguments yet? (03-5554) -- That woman deserves her revenge... and... we deserve to die. -- Budd, Kill Bill
Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI
If they want to do some good, how about investigating these criminals? http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/0304/23senators.html Have to confess I'm a little confused, though. On the one hand, the article insists they broke no laws; on the other, it says they trade on privileged information not available to the public. Isn't this the very definition of insider trading? Isn't it what they were originally pursuing Martha for? - GH _ Check out MSN PC Safety Security to help ensure your PC is protected and safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp
Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI
At 06:53 PM 3/23/04 -0800, John Young wrote: Why pity Martha Stewart, so far she's escaped the pokey, Because she got charged with *lying* to a fed when she was *not* under oath. The lesson is real. The ordinary pig on the street --not just a fed-- can lie to you, and bust you if you return the favor. *You* of all people should know this. Perhaps you're too impressed by sharp suits and polite haircuts. I don't give a rat's pastel ass about Stewart (or Padilla, etc), except as a citizen, which pretty much means fodder for the gestapo these days. The only reason to speak to feds or cold-calling police is counter intel, learn what they're interested in. And then publish that. With faces if acquired. - Got Osama?
Re: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI
At 10:28 AM -0800 3/24/04, Major Variola (ret) wrote: Because she got charged with *lying* to a fed when she was *not* under oath. So, the point is, as Duncan Frissell has always said on this list, when confronted with cops of any kind, shut up, and lawyer up. Period. I expect you can be nice and all when talking to them, in fact they're nicer to you that way, less like to, um, tune you up :-), but the point around here has always been, and as now demonstrated, with feds in particular, if they merely *accuse* you of lying, you can go to jail, and they don't have to do much to prove it. As the Martha case shows, all they have to do is write down that they *thought* you were lying to them, and you could very well end up in jail. So, to prevent yourself from lying to the feds for any reason whatsoever, don't talk to them. If they insist, have your lawyer talk to them. If they subpoena you as a witness, or depose you, at least you're talking in open court, or at least with witnesses, transcription, and video tape running, and your lawyer's there to keep them from twisting your words around so much. Which, obviously, was my point. Not some crypto-(emphasis, apparently, on crypto-)leveller prestilog in Youngrish about how evil rich people are. :-). Plutocracy, um, rules, RAH Sometimes prose-poetry is prose-poetry. Other times, it's just a pain in the ass. -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
[osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI
--- begin forwarded text To: From: Tefft, Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mailing-List: list [EMAIL PROTECTED]; contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:32:37 -0500 Subject: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thought everyone knew that. Bruce - http://www.nwanews.com/times/story_Editorial.php?storyid=115586 Guest Commentary : Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI BY DONALD KAUL Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 Here is the lesson to be learned from the fall of Martha Stewart: Don't ever, under any circumstances, answer questions put to you by the FBI or any other federal agent unless you have a competent criminal lawyer at your side. And it would be better if it were a very good criminal lawyer. There are other lessons to be drawn from the fate of poor Martha, but that's the main one. You see, there is a section in the federal code, referred to as 1001 by legal eagles, that makes it a crime to lie to a federal agent. The agent doesn't have to put you under oath. If you tell him or her a lie, you're guilty. The federal officer doesn't even have to tape the conversation. All he or she has to do is produce handwritten notes that indicate that you made false statements. So, if you misspeak or the agent mishears or there is an ambiguity that the agent chooses to interpret in an unfortunate (for you) direction, you're on the hook. There's also the possibility that you might be tempted to shade the truth a bit when an IRS agent is quizzing you about that business deduction you took for the trip to Vegas. My advice to you is: Don't do it. To be on the safe side, when confronted by a federal agent, don't say anything at all unless your lawyer says you have to. It's a shame things have come to this. It used to be that people felt it their duty as citizens to cooperate with federal authorities. That was before Law 1001. We now live in an era of Incredible Shrinking Civil Rights. You have to protect yourself at all times. Let's look more closely at the case of Poor Martha the Match Girl. What did she do? She was convicted of lying about the reason she sold her shares in a biotechnology company two years ago. She said she sold them because they had fallen to the price at which she and her broker had agreed to sell. The government argued (and the jury believed) that she sold because her broker passed on some inside information that the stock was going to plunge in the next couple of days. I know what you're going to say - insider trading. True, it has that smell about it, but the government did not charge her with insider trading, only with lying about it. I hate that. It seems to me that convicting someone of lying about a crime that the government isn't willing to prove happened is unfair. Add to that the fact that Ms. Stewart saved all of $45,000 on the stock transaction and has seen her fortune decrease by hundreds of millions because of the trial, and the penalty does not seem to fit the crime. I think the reason the government has spent millions pursuing this two-bit case is because Ms. Stewart is famous and the case makes it look as though the Justice Department is doing a bang-up job running down crooks in high places. Also, the lifestyle lady - a political contributor to Democrats rather than Republicans, incidentally - irritated prosecutors with her haughty, arrogant attitude. (It's always a bad idea to make prosecutors mad.) Then too, her high-priced attorney, Robert Morvillo, lost a series of strategic gambles that left his client virtually defenseless. After the government had spent six weeks making the case against Stewart, Morvillo called only one witness in her defense and questioned him for 20 minutes. His chief argument was that Stewart and her broker were too smart to pull a dumb stunt like this. As one juror said later, How could we tell anything about how smart either of them was if they never took the stand? Ultimately, I suppose, Ms. Stewart's downfall was precipitated by petty greed, arrogance and deceitfulness, not attractive attributes. But I still feel sorry for her. She's getting worse than she deserves. Donald Kaul recently retired as Washington columnist for the Des Moines Register. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence
[osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI
--- begin forwarded text To: From: Tefft, Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mailing-List: list [EMAIL PROTECTED]; contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:32:37 -0500 Subject: [osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thought everyone knew that. Bruce - http://www.nwanews.com/times/story_Editorial.php?storyid=115586 Guest Commentary : Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI BY DONALD KAUL Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 Here is the lesson to be learned from the fall of Martha Stewart: Don't ever, under any circumstances, answer questions put to you by the FBI or any other federal agent unless you have a competent criminal lawyer at your side. And it would be better if it were a very good criminal lawyer. There are other lessons to be drawn from the fate of poor Martha, but that's the main one. You see, there is a section in the federal code, referred to as 1001 by legal eagles, that makes it a crime to lie to a federal agent. The agent doesn't have to put you under oath. If you tell him or her a lie, you're guilty. The federal officer doesn't even have to tape the conversation. All he or she has to do is produce handwritten notes that indicate that you made false statements. So, if you misspeak or the agent mishears or there is an ambiguity that the agent chooses to interpret in an unfortunate (for you) direction, you're on the hook. There's also the possibility that you might be tempted to shade the truth a bit when an IRS agent is quizzing you about that business deduction you took for the trip to Vegas. My advice to you is: Don't do it. To be on the safe side, when confronted by a federal agent, don't say anything at all unless your lawyer says you have to. It's a shame things have come to this. It used to be that people felt it their duty as citizens to cooperate with federal authorities. That was before Law 1001. We now live in an era of Incredible Shrinking Civil Rights. You have to protect yourself at all times. Let's look more closely at the case of Poor Martha the Match Girl. What did she do? She was convicted of lying about the reason she sold her shares in a biotechnology company two years ago. She said she sold them because they had fallen to the price at which she and her broker had agreed to sell. The government argued (and the jury believed) that she sold because her broker passed on some inside information that the stock was going to plunge in the next couple of days. I know what you're going to say - insider trading. True, it has that smell about it, but the government did not charge her with insider trading, only with lying about it. I hate that. It seems to me that convicting someone of lying about a crime that the government isn't willing to prove happened is unfair. Add to that the fact that Ms. Stewart saved all of $45,000 on the stock transaction and has seen her fortune decrease by hundreds of millions because of the trial, and the penalty does not seem to fit the crime. I think the reason the government has spent millions pursuing this two-bit case is because Ms. Stewart is famous and the case makes it look as though the Justice Department is doing a bang-up job running down crooks in high places. Also, the lifestyle lady - a political contributor to Democrats rather than Republicans, incidentally - irritated prosecutors with her haughty, arrogant attitude. (It's always a bad idea to make prosecutors mad.) Then too, her high-priced attorney, Robert Morvillo, lost a series of strategic gambles that left his client virtually defenseless. After the government had spent six weeks making the case against Stewart, Morvillo called only one witness in her defense and questioned him for 20 minutes. His chief argument was that Stewart and her broker were too smart to pull a dumb stunt like this. As one juror said later, How could we tell anything about how smart either of them was if they never took the stand? Ultimately, I suppose, Ms. Stewart's downfall was precipitated by petty greed, arrogance and deceitfulness, not attractive attributes. But I still feel sorry for her. She's getting worse than she deserves. Donald Kaul recently retired as Washington columnist for the Des Moines Register. -- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence
