Linux-Advocacy Digest #326, Volume #30 Mon, 20 Nov 00 16:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Complicated Australian Legal Matter! ("Mike")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Complicated Australian Legal Matter!
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:59:55 +1100
This complicated Australian Legal matter is being denied any process.So
we're
trying to get some process for it, via Magazines, films, TV, radio, Book,
lawyer, govt, media, public interest, public support, some such thing.
Because as it stands,
the other side just state what they like and don't answer to anything.
If you have time, you can read details below. If you can help you can get
back to us at the enclosed e-mail. If you have any interest, Post the matter
on to others!
What happens if this Australian Federal matter gets process at all, that's
so far caused the media to refuse to report it, lawyers not to take it, and
the Govt to refuse even any Charge data or appeal scopes for it?
Its supposed to have better rights than that. In fact this is the First time
in Australian history since Federation in 1900, that the basic process
levels of a significant enough matter have been denied.
Also the first time in a mainstream question, that the basic Mens Rea/Strict
Liability legal concepts have been ignored as their literal and historical
meaning
and Statutory legal effect. Following, for details, is a letter from the
party concerned.
Dear Sir/Madam
Because of a gross Injustice that I am not supposed to have to bear and
face at all, I am left trapped in a viscous circle here, of this legal
matter, unable
to ever have basic Govt onus Charge details or any approach to it so far.
Because
Charge details have not been adequately supplied since the matter started in
'91.
In the rare situation here caused by gross total interference with an
Australian Federal Trial process, I need a specialist lawyer or Govt
supplied High Court Commission type hearing, before any charge details exist
as pertainable to so far, before I can yet begin or pertain to the matter at
all.
I am supposed to provide the cost and work of supplying that for the
matter at this stage. Can you help or direct me to who does help?
Feel free to send comments to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For example, I have posted it to nearly 2,000 lawyers recently and
still have no lawyer for it. Yet a lawyer and/or govt onus is necessary
and in fact ruled requisite.
To fully effectively deal in terms of this matter, competence is
required
in areas of Australian Federal, Administrative, Appeal, Damages and
Criminal Law. It is the govt's onus to redress the deficiencies, but so far
the govt system and its associates have refused their onus, or to help.
It is a C/wealth/Federal Law matter, NSW attempting to exercise the
Invested jurisdiction. It started out with what only reads as a
significantly Null charge attempt which claims a Strict Liability charge to
represent the Mens Rea only Commonwealth 1914 Crimes Act Provision
85(s)(b).
I say that situation only reads as Null because the opening Rules of the
Crimes Act say that Law 85(s)(b) can only be a Mens Rea nature Law. And, the
total Law of Strict Liability is that only the Parliament can attempt to
create it.
The totally senseless even within itself charge purported itself as
theoretical
argument about any opinion at all of a letter's surface only,(or ' within
its four corners', as is the legal term for that concept) how people would
regard that surface, regardless and exclusive of the letter's circumstances,
nothing even established or known of its circumstances.
The police/prosecution were attempting to claim a Public censorship
scope for
a letter's written surface alone, during Postal usage.Only as it turns out
they significantly had no scope of such a charge. They did not even have any
postal usage to use for it, but didn't realise that for months either.
Claiming to be made under Section 85(s)(b) C/Wealth Crimes Act, The
Charge
read, - that I,
-----------------" On the 11th day of october, 1991, at Wentworth in the
state of nsw, did use a postal service supplied by australia post, in such a
way as would have been regarded by reasonable persons in all circumstances
as
offensive. "----------------------------
That is the complete, exact wording and punctuation, and applying to
the surface of a letter within its 4 corners. As is the data supplied as the
police brief surrounding those charge words to set the situation and nature
of the charge, by and at the Committal hearing in December '91.
- 1 - In '92, The Magistrates penalty was a $400 fine.
- 2 - In '93, in the started trial process of my Review appeal on
questions of Law, the Judge, Wall, ruled the charge attempt appeared to be a
total Nullity with no scope of procedure as a charge, but that the factors
it involved were beyond the available charging range the unrepresented
Defendant has to face. And in fact of that the charge attempt is
complicatedly so of that unavailability to a degree requisiting and
necessitating specialist legal aid and representation before the matter can
proceed any further. And Wall then adjourned the matter mid Trial, until
that specialist aid eventuated. Wall then set the matter for recommencement
before himself one year later.
- 3 - In '94, the false judge Taylor crazily forced himself and a Denovo
trial on my started Review appeal trial in Judge Wall's court. Taylor also
purported a penalty. It was the maximum allowable 3 year good behaviour
bond, the first 18 months of which was to be served being supervised by
corrective services, again the 18 months is the maximum .
Already since '91 the situation has falsely caused me to have had to
spend all the money I had trying to supply basic Charge sheet and level
details for the matter, and that as the only approach the matter allows at
all so far and still. Since '91, b/w $50 -2,500 a week, in contact with up
to 5 depts a week, for no result so far, and now I am broke. That is
something it is not supposed to ever be my legal and /or financial onus
to have to do in relation to a charge I face. Yet it still has the above of
its
requisite and basic process to be sorted out for the basic charge data angle
to exist yet.
Getting back to some details, that is not an exaggeration or
embellishment
of what the charge is. It very totally is that, only reads as that, was
intended as that, insisted on as that, and it is provable as that and that
it was intended as such. Of the relevant such circumstances of writing of a
letter, in this matter, I have never
been asked yet, how and why I wrote the letter. It is not established or
known if
the people and places mentioned in the letter exist at all. No people or
anyone
claimed as such people have ever been present in this charge, court or
anywhere else at all in this matter.
The nearest thing to anything established or known of the letter's
circumstances is that a mystery woman, not of the same name as on an
envelope, or in the letter, took an envelope and letter to a police station
300 miles from the envelope and letter's physical relevance. This is
purportedly the same letter that 2 other people, 9 days prior to that
had taken to a Police station back at that 300 miles away place.
That is all this matter knows and has ever heard of her or them and how
and
why that was. I do not know who, how and why she or they are. As far as I
know none of the Police concerned knew or know any more of them than that.
Police then, presuming postal usage from that, and with no interest in
the letter's circumstances, thought they had the above cited postal usage
letter's
surface viewing charge available to them, and so proceeded with that
natureless,
degreeless, peopleless, circumstanceless, total nullity senseless through
and through yes/no question and answer charge attempt.
Sic, _ _ ' that people viewing the letter's written surface only, would
find its words offensive, no matter what the letter's circumstances were ' _
Actually the original charge sheet given to me had a wrong # on it. It
claimed
the charge was made under Law 855 of the C/Wealth Crimes Act, and that act
only goes up to 125 or so. But the point has never had any process yet.
Because of the wrong 855# on the Charge sheet I was unable to find the
Law
the charge was supposed to represent. I presumed it was some rarely used
obscure antiquated law that must run concurrently and at total loggerheads
with our other law of letters, those factors and procedure.
At first, on those grounds, I tried to convince Police/Prosecution that
it should not be applied, because it was basically unjust. They insisted
on the charge and I gave up trying to get explanations, leaving that for
the court to provide.
The magistrate at the 1st court appearance Aug '92 refused to allow
any of the explanation necessary for the charge to exist even within itself.
She forcibly applied the prima facie senseless charge, and claimed many
contradictory unavailable elements, and met no definition of her actions
even.
Which resulted in multiplying the already extensive, complicated situation
and
still we had no explanation or even definition of anything to use or pertain
to.
I then Review appealed it on a Question of Law. NSW purported to supply
the District Court for this. A thing it very much had no right to do. There
is no jurisdiction in the District court for Federal Review appeal, and no
scope for the State exercising the power to purport there is.
At the Review appeal, in the specifically opened, started trial processs,
the Judge, Wall, upon a brief cursory look at the surface data, stated it
appeared the charge was a Nullity, because there is no scope of changing
the Charge Nature(Strict Liability) to the Mens Rea nature the Law the
charge
tries to represent, 1914 C/w Crimes Act 85(s)(b) solely is and allows.
Wall then further stated that the mess the charge data was in and the
elements it involved were beyond the available charging scopes that the
unrepresented defendant has to face. Wall granted a one year's adjournment
and set the matter for recommencement before himself again one year later.
Due to the matter occurring in a distant complicated border situation,
Legal
aid refusing to pay attention to Wall's ruling, and me having a serious
back
injury then, I could not get a lawyer in the interim year.
The next year a different judge, Taylor, without explanation, crazily
forced
himself and a Denovo trial on the matter. He refused to allow any
explanations,
and did not supply any definitions of his actions even. Nor did he manage to
supply anything for the charge, as his complicated vocal only attempts were
that undefined, senseless, impossible to exist with one another,
contradictory
and unsatisfactory at all. But all his attempted widely ranged 220 counts
claim
are distinct from the Magistrates, yet are also claimed by him to be the
same
exact charge and details as the Magistrate used, and he rules he is only
using
one count not allowing of the others, and along with the Magistrate's claims
and other components are all equally the only relevant elements for the
necessary charge explanation. So Taylor has vastly multiplied the already
extensively in
need of explanation entire situation.
My right to have basic charge and jurisdiction system onus process is
being denied astronomically crazily here.
For example, to have anything yet of charge details I am left with
having to supply them for and to the matter at this stage and with the
nearest vehicle capable of doing that, a $250,000,000 High Court hearing.
Also I am subjected to the inhumanness of the false Judge.
Whereby he purports to mindlessly make up 100's of serious different
charges, counts, etc, in terms of people, actions, relationships, natures
and circumstances, in this natureless, peopleless, circumstanceless charge
attempt situation and nature he wrongfully forced himself and different type
of trial and charge on, and then carried on as such. There were no people he
alleged of this charge in this charge, or available to this charge, even in
his court at all, or any such people in his court at all, or ever any people
produced in relation to the charge anywhere else in this matter either.
And just one more of the many multiples of the undefined data is the way
Taylor did that. His grounds for making up that many different counts,
people circumstances, actions involving people, and purported prosecution
produced proven processs of them, was that I said, in relation to the
theoretical argument any opinion of a letter's surface charge that, _ _ "all
my actions were properly within the Law"_ _. That was Taylor's purported
confession of such guilt by me as to allow him to make up that many serious
new different Charges and process at that stage of the matter. Yet he
clearly had no scope to attempt to disprove my statement. .
And that was one of his main basis's for the out of sync sentence he
seeks
to apply. His sole other big main reason for the grotesqely out of sync
sentence was his claim that I had during the proceedings shown I had no
remorse and refused to reform.
His sole grounds for that was that in relation to reform I said _ _ "that
in regard of the letter which had been written lucidly mundanely properly
within the Law, I had reformed on Police contact in Oct '91, from any
possible error. But, I still knew of no error, or any right of accusation of
error, and had no idea what the accusation was supposed to be, could I
please have details so as I could pertain to it" _ _
That was the 4th time I had asked Taylor for at least basic details of
the
charge and/or accusation, because as it stood it was totally senseless
and in need of explanation to exist at all. And for the 4th time Taylor
dileberately refused to explain or allow explanation of it at all. And
Taylor crazily sought to subvert and pervert Justice on those points too.
The charge I was there for even in Taylor's carryon, has no reoffence
elements,
or any degreed natures, circumstances, people etc. The basic Law of Charge
Procedure says that so the Defence can know the charge to prepare a case,
the details of the charge as one only Count, situation and nature must be
supplied
to the Defence adequately and as the common to all one same Public aspect
thing by and at the Committal hearing, which in this matter was in Dec '91.
The
Law is explicit, totally saying the charge you answer must be the same as
the one charged and no other. That even any differences work an Injustice
causing the procedure to be struck out.
This is not my opinion of what the Law of Charge procedure should be, it
is exact citing of that Law and its held meaning. Some more of that Law with
relevance here is -
- prosecution must prove the elements of criminal liability beyond doubt.
- defendant is only on trial for offence charged and none other.
- only one crime can be charged in each count, and the count must specify
the nature of the crime charged along with full final details.
- substantive charges must be particularised in detail.
- procedural Laws specify Defendant may only be convicted of the crime
specified in the count and none other, ie, the law against Duplicity.
(no crime is specified in the charge count against me here, it is totally
flawed and senseless)
- courts are not empowered to create new offences.
- there must be no discrepancy between the case alleged and the case
proven.
- Uncertainty in Law is not good and would cause things to depend on the
personal views of the the tribunal.
- It is the Law of criminal procedure that the criminal count must state
the specific offence charged, together with such particulars as are
necessary for giving reasonable information as to the nature and details of
the charge.
(no such information whatsoever is supplied in the charge against me)
Basically we have these procedural Laws to enable the Defence to know the
charge prepare a case, and these Laws prevent the prosecution, Judiciary or
public ' shifting ground ' during the trial, and these Laws ensure that the
Defence,
if convicted, will be convicted of the offence charged, and not some
similar,
or other offence.
That Taylor incident occurred in the situation where, after the year's
adjourment, unable to get the lawyer Wall had ruled requisite, my only
preparation for the '94 hearing was study of the point law, at the stage
of it we had left off at in '93. With the presumption being that Wall would
extend the adjournment anyway.
And I am then unjustly groundlessly subjected to the mindless, out of sync
carryon Taylor tried to enact. And I am left to suffer its effects with no
scope
of defending or having details at all, and of these fields where there is to
that
total degree no scope or right of accusation against me at all.
Long into his Judgement, sentence, and comments on sentence, Taylor
distinct from all previous each time, was still attempting to make up new
serious extreme charges and purported prosecution produced corroborated
process of them, with every statement he made. With that the only, and that
insufficient, details of them. But because the Charge attempt factors are a
total Nullity in all aspects, legally and scientifically, there is no right
or scope
of accusation available against me.So Taylor kept failing at every one of
his
220 attempts to make up his own new charges and purported enacted process
to any degree.
All he did as he saw how each attempt would fail, was run off and come
back for another go, but he failed each time. It fills volumes.
Thing is, all Taylor can be read as, for details of him as part of this
charge,
and details of what he is doing in my Review Appeal trial, is that Taylor is
not
valid as a Judge, for him and the govt to have a scope to claim he is what I
face
for the charge I am there for. The Law says the same Judge must hear the
started trial process. Here that is Judge Wall. In the Invested Federal Law
only the already
decided Law in uniform amounts is available for the States in their
usage.The govt has the job and onus of supplying Judge Wall for the trial. I
am not there for anything else.
So Taylor is only serious total Criminal Interference to Trial process,
and he is nothing I face as my legal and /or financial onus of the charge
and trial I am there to face. My only onus is having to point out the
situation to the relevant authorities.
So that is the crazy viscous circle situation the matter is, and all that
has been supplied as any basic process details.
For example, if I or anyone else want to see, use, pertain to the Charge
sheet,
charge, charge levels and/or its immediate details for appeal, proofs or
other,
what does one use? Where does it exist? What is it? Who states or can state
that of it? What extents of anything do you need to use?
And in the Govt's view, charge and appeal scopes are adequately supplied
as a
common to all one same Public aspect thing. So to treat the matter as that
and
my onus to take it further, what is what at all? Interalia(among other
things)how does one know what extent of what data to use?
For the purported charge details even in that view, interalia, it is not
yet
informed to the matter or knowable of the matter what anyone of a large
number of relevant parties is saying that Taylor occurrence is at all. That
is eg, forcing himself and his purported vocal recharge on the started trial
process, the non-started trial, or other or what? One of 20 clerks in the
paperwork chain in the interim 93-94 year stated Taylor should take over?
The nsw attorney general in 97 stated it? Wall said it is the started Trial,
but a clerk said its not? Taylor said it is a trial started in Wall's court?
Etc.
To get anything of even those of the necessary details for the matter I am
supposed to pay about $100,000,000 for the High Court hearing to determine
it.
As it stands, it is very much the Law that the same Judge must hear the
started trial process, and totally so of Federal Invested matters, with the
system having
no scope to claim other than that. Yet the system has so far, across its
entirety refused its onus of redress, and removal of the interference to my
Review appeal. Which interference is massive, significant, incredibly
demeaning and offensive to me, and also has horrific far reaching permanent
hideous effects.
Basically what it means is, that the nearest approach to any or anything
of the
matter, is a $250,000,000 High Court hearing, which the system is saying is
my
onus to provide if I want to take the matter further. But I do not feel it
is validly my
onus to have to face those things as part of the charge I face that can be
validly
said to be my legal and/or financial onus. I have studied all the surface
Legal text
but am yet to find any "shortcut way" of getting process for the matter. Can
someone please help the case and try to figure out a way of that.
As I see it I need the Govt or a lawyer to take the case to the High
Court
on 3 points.
The 3 points are
-1- the question of the whole '91 Charge attempt being a Nullity.
- 2 - the question that judge Taylor in '94 is Invalid.
- 3 - The point that Judge Wall's '93 ruling of requisite specialist legal
aid before the matter proceeds further, is a significant valid ruling.
If the High Court were to uphold all or any of those 3 points, then
there would
be some things to sort out that would need High court statement further than
just
a basic law upheld.
Also if the High Court was to uphold any of those 3 grounds I would
want to seek to make a case for $11,000,000,000(billion) in damages. For
help in getting process for this matter, I would pay well in bonus's from
any damages got.
Also, consider this:
- I am a fully entitled citizen, with the next best thing to a 100% clean
all round record, just 3 small $100 fines for things like arguing with
police on it , the last of them 24 years ago.
- There is very much nothing behind the scenes either, that might in some
way entitle the carryon I've been subjected to. My behaviour has been that
exemplary too, through that period. No contact with police beyond a few
parking tickets. I've never been a suspect or involved as the subject of any
police or other official operations. Up till the '91 start of this matter,
none
of the police and people involved then and since had ever met or heard
of me. And there is nothing derogatry to hear.
- Involved along the way also are interesting enough situations of 6 or 7
notable enough public figures. For example Gleeson the now High Court Chief
Justice, because of court staff mistakes in his nsw court of criminal appeal
days not long before his HC appointment, accidently sat on this C/Wealth
law, High court itself data matter, whose status is only able to be read as
that it must be referred to the High Court for any statement, definition or
procedure at all. With that fact sitting at about 2+2 level on the national
legal scale, Gleeson didn't even recognise or have a clue of it. And I
wonder if Daryl Williams who has long denied process for this matter knew
that Gleeson had already sat on it when Daryl appointed Gleeson to the High
Court? If the matter does get to the HC in Gleeson's tenure he cannot sit on
it again. Also in relation to Gleeson there are a few other still live,
legally intriguing situations.
- The Federal police officer who refused to investigate or deal with the
seriously forged trial data of the matter, and wasted a year of the matter's
time, was a Martindale, who soon after that left the AFP and joined Pauline
Hansen's political party.
-This matter is not insignificant and without public interest and so able
to be passed by.
- Also, since '92 the Trial transcripts have been extensively significantly
Forged,
and so far all the govt has refused to deal with that. Points have been
forged to attempt to make it look like the prosecution and judiciary had
some grounds, or made some sense as a definition, where in fact in all the
process of this, the prosecution and judiciary at the Magistrate and
Taylor's court have not made one valid or even defined point. And things I
said have been changed to make it look as if I enabled some grounds against
me in some form at least, where in all the process, what I said enables no
such thing.
- However the forgeries failed to achieve any definition either, so are
only further multiples of the undefined data. The thing is, with the govt
saying all is A-OK
with charge levels and appeal scopes, the charge needing explanation to
exist at all, and only vocal details supplied as it by the Magistrate and
from then on, the only explanation is the vocal details of the purported
enacted process.So with the
forgeries in the way of it, even that has been impossible to use for details
yet. What do I use? Take the tapes and transcripts to the High Court, as the
only approach this matter allows so far?
- We do not want around, the people of NSW and Federal spheres who openly
cheaply forged the trial data of this matter to any degree and have been
abetted so far. We want that aspect dealt with, and such people dealt with.
-The 2nd and final prosecutor in this matter, now of the C/w prosecution
office, is Grant Lawlor(the one who recently in a lecture to students in
Canberra, conveniently gave away the prosecution case in the politicians
rorts affair.). But up till when the false judge Taylor in may '94 forced
himself and a denovo trial on my started Review appeal in Judge Wall's
court, it seems Lawlor may not have been of the C/w prosecutor's office.
At least in that far distant Wentworth nsw(near Mildura) court, at the
yearly
District court sittings in '93 & '94, Lawlor from Wagga was prosecuting all
the
other local State matters. In all the media reports of federal matters I
have never seen a c/w prosecutor operate in any more than the one matter
he/she is sent in
to deal in.
Judge Wall made a point even in his short time, of pointing out the
slimy reputation Lawlor had. If Lawlors only claim to promotion is that he
participated and abetted a Judge totally crazily interfering with the court
process of a Federal Trial and another Judge's court, then Lawlor and the
other people concerned are not people we 100% want around in place of
the requisite basic Charge and all other process of this matter.
-The judge Taylor, who forced himself and a Denovo trial on the started
trial process of my review appeal in Judge Wall's court, is not exempt at
all
from our Laws against interference with trial process. He is the same as eg
John Laws the talk show radio host, or anyone else.
- We do not want around the people of the NSW and Federal Attorney-generals
dept's who ignored and abetted these serious interferences with trial
process.
It is not 100% in our beliefs that we want the other side to mine in this
matter around as they are, no matter what and to the exclusion of any
process or even
approach to this matter.
Thanks.
M.
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8v4q64$qb8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I can recall, on many occasions, that every time someone
> complained about WindowsNT's architecture, one of us in
> COMNA would point out that moving the GDI into kernel
> space was a good thing because:
>
> 1.) It didn't comprimise stability, since even as a
> separate module, a GDI fault would cause a BSOD.
>
> 2.) It significantly increased the speed of the interface.
>
> Then many a Linux tech-wannabe would chime in, generally
> stating that calls from kernel space did not yield any
> speed advantages whatsoever, and that Microsoft's
> engineers only placed the GDI into kernel space,
> because they are just idiots.
>
> Alas, here, I am reading in the November 2000 issue of
> Linux Magazine, a very informative article from an
> obviously very learned and knowledgable Linux developer
> known as Alessandro Rubini. The article is basically
> about how making system calls from kernel space can
> significantly reduce overhead, and I must say, it was
> a very interesting read.
>
> Here is one of his cumulative comments before he
> begins to go into detail on the "read" call:
>
> ----
> "Until now, we have collected a few figures and have
> found that making system calls from kernel space can
> significantly reduce the overhead of the system call
> mechanism."
> ----
>
> To be fair, he continues on to say:
>
> ----
> "...I still think that their use should be as limited
> as possible."
> ----
>
> So, it's clear that he would not be a proponent of
> placing something such as the X protocol in kernel
> space. That's fine. But he still makes the point
> that kernel-space calls are indeed faster. He also
> points out that stability is one of the sacrifices,
> but in WindowsNT, there is no stability sacrificed,
> as there was no advantage to having the GDI in a
> separate module, which, again, makes our (NT users')
> point.
>
> <sarcasm>
> 'Gee! Now, who shall we believe? A person who knows
> something about the Linux kernel, or a bunch of
> political-activist momma's boys who like to dress
> up like programmers, and call themselves "intellectuals"?
> </sarcasm>
>
> I have to hand it to Linux Magazine... it really
> does tend to distance itself from the stupid
> anti-Microsoft baloney that the Linux camp is
> so famous for, and it actually uses its pages
> to inform people about Linux. I'm seriously
> thinking about subscribing to it, for the mere
> interest of the technical content. Who knows...
> maybe I can apply some of their tricks to NetBSD. :-\
>
> For all of my fellow NT users, who never thought anyone
> involved in Linux would have anything intelligent
> to say about it, I would suggest it, if not for anything
> else, but just an interesting magazine to read.
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
> | = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> | -| "You are a waste of space; a disgrace to your profession;
> | | both the one you claim and the kindergarten student you
> |_..._| act like..." -- Robert Moir to Aaron R. Kulkis in COMNA
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
