-Caveat Lector- from: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ <A HREF="http://www.aci.net/kalliste/hayes970410.htm">The Home Page of J. Orlin Grabbe </A> ----- "What forbids us to tell the truth, laughingly?"--Horace, Satires, I.24 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Why is Charles Hayes being moved from Manchester, Kentucky to Cumberland, Maryland? Court Record Regarding FBI Snitch Lawrence Myers Read how the Government's Chief Witness Lawrence Myers: •Testified for the FBI in other cases. •Was diagnosed as having a "mixed personality disorder" in the military. •Spent time in an Oakland psychiatric hospital. •Wrote books on bomb-making. •Tried to blackmail his own friend for $5000, after the friend took him in. •Pleaded guilty to grand theft. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Today's Lesson From Silent Coup by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin After briefing [Thomas] Moorer at nine in the morning in 1969 and 1970, [Bob] Woodward would often travel to the West Basement offices of the White House, carrying documents from Moorer, and would then deliver these and brief Alexander Haig about the same matters he had earlier conveyed to Moorer. Among those who saw Woodward enter Haig's room was Roger Morris, then a member of Henry Kissinger's NSC staff. (Morris later resigned from his position in protest at the bombing of Cambodia.) When pictures of Woodward began to appear in the newspapers in the 1970s, Morris recognized him as a young Navy officer he had seen going into Haig's office. "I learned through friends that this was the same guy who had been one of Moore's aides, and had worked at the Pentagon and so forth, and knew Al Haig well, and had been back and forth in the West Basement in those early days," Morris told us recently. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Today's News Articles Cypherpunks on Trial The Carl Johnson Versus Jeff Gordon Show! Subpoenas left and right in Toto case Declan McCullagh! John Gilmore! You're next! To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Day 1 of the CJ vs. Jeff Gordon show Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 19:33:13 -0700 From: John Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am in Tacoma, having been subpoena'd by the Assistant US Attorney, Robb London, to testify at the trial. I didn't want to come, and got two hours of sleep after my return from a 10-day East Coast trip, but I'm here under penalty of contempt of court. This fiasco has been preceded by a long run-up. The AUSA had filed several previous subpoenas against me, trying to force me to come to a grand jury with "all my correspondence relating to the cypherpunks". I resisted this gratuitous, unconstitutional and illegal fishing expedition through many megabytes of personal as well as public email, as illegal under the ECPA and the Privacy Protection Act, and the First and Fourth amendments. It led to months of legal wrangling, thousands of dollars in legal bills, having Federal process servers confront me and my tenants, being directly threatened by IRS officer Jeff Gordon that he would get a search warrant to search my house (also illegal, I and my lawyers argued; he never followed through), an affidavit filed by me which says nothing interesting, and a formal motion filed with the court by me to quash the illegal subpoena. Very soon after that, once I had brought his illegal conduct up in front of the judge, the AUSA apparently spent his spare time actually reading the law, and got much more reasonable. The AUSA faxed me a specific list of email messages (identified by date, From address, and Subject) directly related to the investigation. We then got to argue over how I would be compensated for the labor of searching out these messages, as required under the ECPA. They aren't used to paying libertarian millionaires to do shitwork in the service of authoritarianism; we don't come cheap. I did the work, sent the messages on floppy to my lawyer, the AUSA got a real warrant issued by a judge (not a rubber-stamped "issued in blank" subpoena), and seized them, finally following the law. They still haven't paid me. My lawyers' fees and my personal time spent fighting their unconstitutional acts will never be repaid. I consider stopping illegal crap by civil servants who think they are civil masters to be part of my civic duty, like voting, fighting in the military, serving on a jury, or always taking tickets to court. Luckily I have the money, if not the time, to do so without hurting at the moment. Other cypherpunks archivists took other courses. The gov't then subpoenad'd me to come to the trial and testify. They keep wanting to talk with me before the testimony, but I've declined. The subpoena requires me to testify, it doesn't require me to talk to them in private. And for some reason, after the above experiences, they just aren't my preferred evening companions in beautiful Tacoma. I arrived in the courtroom about 2PM, which was apparently about when the trial actually started. The guards at the entrance wouldn't let me bring in my cellophone and laptop. One of them actually told me I couldn't bring pen and paper into the courtroom unless I was a journalist. His partner luckily set him straight that citizens in the USSA still have a few First Amendment rights, even in the halls of justice. We don't have First Amendment rights to use computers to communicate, like the Supreme Court said we did in ACLU v. Reno, but quill pens and other 18th-century inventions are still accepted. I first laid eyes on Carl Johnson in that (small) courtroom. He looked a lot like me - balding, fringe of hair, bearded, leaning forward intently as his fate was being decided. His public defender, Gene Grantham , was beside him. The rest of the room was full of government people in suits -- three at the prosecuting desk, two more behind them in the spectators' benches, a marshal by the door, another few suits on the benches on the defense side. It turns out that Judge Bryan was gone all last week too, and missed his flight back last night (he blamed "United Airlines and mother nature"). So he wasn't here in the morning to start the trial anyway. Nor had he yet read the briefs submitted by the parties. He found it embarrassing. I agree, it is. I hope he will do a better job with the rest of the trial; a man's freedom is at stake here, as well as the reputation of a fine IRS officer who spent years monitoring the cypherpunks mailing list and has had to come up with some justification for it. The prosecution seemed flustered when I walked in. They kept glancing in my direction. After about ten minutes they brought up the topic of excluding witnesses from the courtroom. The judge stated that on his own he would not exclude witnesses. The government requested that witnesses be excluded. The judge granted the request, stating that if either side requested it, he must do so. This means that most of the cypherpunks who the government has used its power to drag across the country will be unable to watch the "show trial" except when they are the clowns in the center ring. My take is that their "show trial" would be ridiculed if the public actually saw it. Therefore I hope that many members of the public will come down to the Tacoma Federal Courthouse, attached to the big old brick "Union Station", very visible from the freeway as you enter Tacoma heading south (past the sports dome). Anybody know any Seattle or Tacoma reporters? Clearly the government doesn't want them there -- or the gov't would have invited some. Let's see if we can bring some who care about civil rights, free speech in online fora, and the rights of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches. I later found out that Carl today requested a trial by judge instead of a trial by jury. After questioning him on this decision to make sure it wasn't made lightly, Judge Bryan granted his request. The judge recessed the court shortly after excluding me and another witness, presumably so he could read the briefs. It will reconvene at 9:30AM tomorrow, Tuesday morning. I'll pass on whatever scuttlebutt I hear "in the halls of justice, where the justice is in the halls", where the government prefers to keep cypherpunks, without their communications devices, so they can't report on supposedly public trials. In some of my interactions with US Government employees I have come away with a better understanding of the challenges they face, and increased respect for how they conduct themselves. This is not one of those. John Bribes in Brazil Central Bank Officials Under Investigation for Taking Bribes "This wave of permanent promiscuity" The Brazilian central bank yesterday set up an inquiry to investigate allegations that a local bank paid bribes to officials at the central bank in return for inside information on currency policy. The federal police are also opening an investigation into claims in a magazine report that Salvatore Cacciola, the former owner of Banco Marka, which recently failed, paid central bank officials for inside tips. The inquiries follow a growing scandal over events at Banco Marka, which went into liquidation in January despite being sold dollars by the central bank below the market price at the peak of Brazil's currency crisis. The scandal will be one of the main subjects of a special Senate inquiry into the financial system that is likely to be set up later this week, which the government fears could expose embarrassing information. Francisco Lopes, who was the central bank's president at the time of the devaluation, has claimed the authorities helped Marka after the country's main futures exchange warned them about systemic risk if there were any bank failures. The BM&F, the futures market, has denied the claim. The probes were set up after Veja, Brazil's leading news weekly, published an article over the weekend, based on interviews with associates of Mr Cacciola, claiming that Banco Marka paid $125,000 a month to a central bank official in return for secrets. According to the report, one of the reasons for Banco Marka's collapse was that it bet heavily against a currency crisis in January, despite the obvious signs of the government's difficulties in the days leading up to the January 13 devaluation. "The government understands that relations between the central bank and bankers can no longer be covered by this wave of permanent promiscuity," said Renan Calheiros, the justice minister. The Financial Times, April 13, 1999 LME London Metal Exchange to Maintain Open Outcry System No electrons in this pit The London Metal Exchange, the world's leading metal market, has decided to retain its century old "open outcry" ring-dealing trading system for the foreseeable future. The decision came as the London International Financial Future s and Options Exchange moved its gilt contract to automated trading. Liffe is in the middle of moving all its financial contracts away from open outcry, but has taken no decision on whether to do the same with its commodity contracts (coffee, cocoa, wheat, barley, freight rates and potatoes). Sugar is the only one traded electronically. David King, chief executive of the London Metal Exchange, which trades aluminium, tin, copper, lead, zinc and nickel, and plans soon to introduce an index contract and a silver contract, said the open outcry system is "sacrosanct". The number of firms participating in the ring-dealing system, in which dealers shout at each other across a trading ring several times a day in a price discovery process, has shrunk from 30 to 15 in the past decade, though complementary forms of membership have risen. The LME argues the costs of the present system are so low there would be no cost advantage in switching and that [unlike Liffe] it has no serious competition in most of its markets. The decision to stick with open outcry was taken after completion of a study by PwC and its own executive staff. Its belief in the present system is shown by the fact that it is currently negotiating an extension of its premises at 58 Leadenhall Street for a further five years. However, the exchange has now retained PA Consulting to develop an out-of-hours automated trading system, for use at times other than the ring-dealing sessions. Mr King said no decision has been taken on whether this would replace or run in parallel with the existing 24-hour telephone market. To date, competition has forced the switch from traditional pit-based "open outcry" trading to screen-based systems mainly in the area of financial products. In Europe, Liffe is initially introducing its electronic Liffe Connect system for financial contracts, while in the US, both the Chicago Board of Trade and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange are running or plan to run electronic trading systems alongside floor-based trading for leading contracts. The Chicago exchanges have made no moves to introduce daytime screen- based trading for their big agricultural divisions. The New York Mercantile Exchange, which competes with the LME in some contracts, and the New York Board of Trade, which has an agricultural division, also remain predominantly open-outcry. The Financial Times, April 13, 1999 Clint Eastwood No Namby-Pamby Stuff by Anne Thompson He may be battered, he may be 68, but Clint Eastwood still lays down the law. He tells Anne Thompson about losers, lovers and outliving his critics PERHAPS it's because Hollywood is so used to having him around that Clint Eastwood hasn't always been given his due. At the start of his career, more than 40 years ago, he was a hunk for hire. Then along came directors Sergio Leone and Don Siegel and soon Clint was a star. But he always had bigger ambitions, and in 1970 he walked into the office of the-then President of Universal, Lew Wasserman, and asked if he could direct Play Misty For Me. In those days there was a set procedure for actors who had directing ambitions: they were told to get lost. But Wasserman didn't laugh or throw him out. He said yes. Since then Eastwood has directed 21 films: Westerns, comedies, thrillers, mysteries, adventures, war pictures, romances. He keeps his budgets low, his special effects to a minimum and he shoots fast. Very fast. His latest, True Crime, was shot in just seven weeks, around the Bay area of San Francisco, where he grew up and where the five Dirty Harry movies were filmed. Eastwood plays a journalist who sacrifices his career to save a prisoner on death row whom he believes to have been wrongly accused. Eastwood's personal fortunes have bounced about in the last 10 years. He was sued twice by his former girlfriend, actress Sondra Locke; he fathered a child by actress Frances Farmer, then married newscaster Dina Ruiz, and had another child. Now 68, he flies his own helicopter back and forth to his office in Burbank from his home in Carmel on the California coast. So far, though, he has resisted the lure of a computer and the Internet. "I guess that's my next chore," he sighs. "Gotta get with it here." Eastwood seems tall and stooped in the modest bungalow on the Warner Bros lot that has housed his Malpaso Productions for more than 20 years. Sinking into a sofa, he stretches his thin legs, resting his white sneakers on the coffee table. He swigs occasionally from a water bottle, smiling and laughing as long as the conversation stays easy. When it veers into a place he doesn't care to go, his voice sinks to a whisper. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anne Thompson: True Crime is hard to categorise - it's not an action flick, not a thriller. Clint Eastwood: It's half a character-study and half a mystery unravelling. It's not the kind of movie they're doing today, you know - it's hampered by having a story. But I think there's somebody out there who appreciates that, so I'll keep on trying. AT: You play a journalist in the film. Is he based on any of the press people you've met? CE: Most editors wouldn't have an old guy like that around. He's an obsessive personality. He believes that when he has a feeling for something, it's the right thing to do, but that's taken him down a bad path. He's chasing salvation and has never found it. AT: You don't have a problem with making your character a loser. CE: It's fun to play people who are flawed, but have some redeeming features. This character's a womaniser, he's been an alcoholic, he smokes cigarettes. Everything that's politically incorrect. I love that. If it's incorrect, I'm going to find it interesting. AT: There's a scene in True Crime where you're stripped to the waist having just made love to your boss's wife. Did you say, "I'm going to take my shirt off and show myself in all my glory?" CE: Well, what the scene calls for, you do. You can play it safe and be glamorous, put on a lot of body make-up and lie out in the sun, get bronzed up, or whatever. But I want to do the reality thing. No make-up - just go for it. AT: You didn't do some extra sit-ups the week before? CE: No, I just do these every week. AT: This character is also pretty mean to his child, played by your little daughter Francesca. CE: Actually, it was written originally that he had a son, and then I thought that maybe it would be better if it was the other gender, and also what a big risk using little Frannie would be, because at that time she was just turning five. Having worked with orang-utans and children before, I think I can keep their interest and try to shoot at the time when you have their interest-level the most. AT: You cast her mother, Frances Fisher, as well. So presumably you're still friendly? CE: Absolutely. Frances is a very good actress, so I might as well use her as someone else. I figured maybe the antagonism would come easier. She might enjoy it. AT: Did you read Sondra Locke's book? CE: No, I didn't bother. AT: She has sued you twice, first in a palimony suit and then over the production deal at Warner Bros that you arranged for her. She argued that Warners never intended to make any movie with her. Each time you settled. If you had to do it all over again, would you play things differently - because in the end you were painted as the heavy? CE: That's the vulnerability of being a motion-picture actor - somebody trying to gain financially off of you. All you can do is sit back, and if somebody sues you, that unfortunately automatically allows them in our legal system to say anything. It doesn't have to be true. Sometimes you have to let people hang themselves a little bit. I'm not sure how many people believed Sondra Locke. In the long run people hurt themselves. There is something to karma. If you spew enough negativity, it has to come back to you in some form, I do believe that philosophically. AT: When you see what President Clinton has been through, do you feel you made the right choice not to pursue politics after being mayor of Carmel? CE: Yeah, I never had the ambition to go further. They'd crucify me. They're always trying to dig up stuff. The best thing a person can do is just dump it all out there, and say "Hey, I did this and I did that, and that was yesterday and this is today." But that isn't the nature of our political system. It's kind of sickening, really. Nowadays, there's such a hunger for news. In the old days, you didn't hear the President on the radio, or see him on television every night. President Roosevelt sat down once in a while for a fireside chat. But to see a person every night, you've got overexposure: It's like an actor being out in a different movie every week. AT: Nobody's going to want to see you all the time. You try to preserve the mystery? CE: I don't know if you can do that as a politician. I think as an actor you can do it. If you've got something to talk about, come out; if you don't, stay away. AT: A recent biography of you by Richard Schickel suggests that throughout your career your films were underestimated and misread by the media, particularly by New Yorker critic Pauline Kael. Did she do you real damage? CE: No, no. I'm still here. And she's not. AT: With Dirty Harry, you and director Don Siegel were, supposedly, represeniing a fascist agenda. CE: Kael was saying I was a product of the Nixon years - that I represented Nixon. But I was doing very well as an actor long before Nixon became President. And I was doing well after Nixon. And somebody else the other day said, "Well, he's an actor of the '80s." But the '90s have been some of my best years, so I don't know where all these experts come from. I just went ahead and did my own thing. People called Dirty Harry a right-wing fantasy. Don Siegel and I know that it wasn't. He was a liberal; I was sort of a moderate conservative. The Left was much more vocal then, they felt the country was behind them. They found out rudely that the country was headed in the other direction. But in those days if you associated with Republicans, you were far-Right. AT: Dirty Harry was a rebel? CE: Yeah, but was he a leftist rebel or a rightist rebel? He was just a guy who hated bureaucracy and wanted to get a job done; now is that "far right"? I don't think he thought of himself as a political man. He thought of himself as a passionate man trying to solve a case. AT: In recent years your characters seem less like mythical heroes and villains than like real people. CE: Well, I like showing people's strengths and vulnerabilities. The characters in my biggest successes over the past decade, Unforgiven and In the Line of Fire, have a lot of weaknesses along with the strengths. That's true to life. The Gene Hackman character in Unforgiven was appealing because he was not just a villain, he was a guy with a sense of humour who just carried things too far, was somewhat obsessive and had a twisted view of law enforcement. But he had this house and his dreams as he sat on the porch and watched sunsets. He had all the things that villains are never really allowed to have. They're always sneering. AT: Why did you decide to do Unforgiven when you did? CE: I knew it was time - for me, anyway - to do that picture. I never thought it would make money. I just thought that this was a story I wanted to tell, my conclusion as to what the Western mythology is. And if I was ever going to do a last Western, it was the perfect one. AT: Is there something that contemporary film-makers don't understand about making Westerns? CE: It's very, very difficult to do stories about the West that are not rehashes of a lot of things that have been seen before. AT: When you do Westerns, they work. CE: I couldn't tell you why, though. If you have a pretty good eye for material, and you can instinctively say, "OK, I understand these characters. This is a good story" - that's a knack. You're only as good as your choice of material. A lot of great actors have slid down their careers by just picking junk. And a lot of mediocre actors have sustained careers by having a little bit of an eye, and some luck. AT: Are you moving away from .44 Magnum violence? CE: You can get a certain audience enraptured by the gun thing. If a movie doesn't have a good plot and I don't really care about the people, I couldn't care less. Starting out in violent pictures and shoot-'em-ups, I suppose if somebody gave me a great action-oriented film now that at least had a good story-line, then I would entertain it, but I'm not looking for that sort of thing. I figure there are a lot of younger guys out there who can do that stuff. AT: Was John Wayne an influence on you? You've both been willing to reveal weakness in the presence of women. CE: Wayne always seemed vulnerable with women. I've never felt that brutality toward women was a sign of masculinity. Probably the opposite is true. A lot of people thought he was one-dimensional, he always played John Wayne. But he took some bold chances. He played very villainous in Red River. He wasn't afraid to play a guy much older than he was, and to play all the rough edges of that. Of course, he was magnificent in The Searchers, and he just went ahead and boldly played an out-and-out racist. People don't associate that with him, because, like Gary Cooper, his strong personality overrode his acting ability. AT: You've often played opposite strong women - Tyne Daly in The Enforcer, Jessica Walter in Play Misty For Me, Genevieve Bujold in Tightrope. CE: I love strong-women pictures. I don't like the girl-next-door, namby-pamby stuff - I guess, because I was raised in an era of the strong woman on film, the Barbara Stanwycks, Bette Davises. They were wild; Bette's presence was powerful. AT: You've adapted several books for the screen now. Looking back on Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, would you do anything differently? CE: I don't think so. It's hard to take a book and put it on the screen. You try to capture what the author captured, or your interpretation thereof. With that one, I tried to stay pretty close. AT: You were criticised for the length. CE: Yeah, it was a little long, I could have chopped it short and cut some of the characters. But it played all right for me. That's all I can go by. Really, when you do books, you're always open to some criticism. A lot of people didn't care for the book The Bridges of Madison County; they thought Robert James Waller was a second-rate writer. Some folks thought it was sappy, the paradigm of the last cowboy. And I didn't like that either. But I thought the idea of these people meeting - and neither one of them is dying of incurable diseases, but it still doesn't work out - was kind of hip. And so I just took out all of what I thought was drivel. By and large, it did well. AT: Your daughter Alison, whom you directed in Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, says you've become more relaxed and mellow. Is this true? CE: At times. I'm probably not as relaxed as I seem. AT: You're still directing and acting at 68. What is it that drives you to continue to do this hard work? You could be playing golf. CE: I like playing golf as an avocation - but while I'm good at it, I'm not talented at it. And I keep getting offered things. There's always a new hurdle. I love the spirit of acting, I love to watch actors, I love to direct them. I probably, in my mind somewhere, could have retired from acting a long time ago if somebody had said, "OK, that's what you should do." But then, you know, there's always some fool out there who wants you. * True Crime is released on May 7 The London Telegraph, April 13, 1999 ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End Kris DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
