RE: Swindle these guys?
Been there, done that, etc. http://www.419eater.com/ http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mike.jb/images/trophy_room/joe_eboh1.jpg > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tyler Durden > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 8:59 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Swindle these guys? > > > > Bill Stewart wrote... > > >and of course remember that their account doesn't *really* > have $18M in > >it > >:-) > > No doubt it doesn't have $18M. But in order to get the ACH > sent, the originating bank should (theoretically) have to see > some kind of $$$ in there in order to agree to ACH anything > over. If the funds were actually getting contested and > reversed, then I'd be perfectly happy removing them before > they could get reversed. > > -TD > > _ > FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! > http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ > >
RE: Anonymity of prepaid phone chip-cards
Nichols was dumb enough to actually be caught in possession of a card used in at last part of the conspiracy. Other cards that seem to be linked to Nichols were used to locate or obtain ANFO and call the rental agency for the Ryder truck as well as other numbers linked to the crime. That is public knowledge at this point. Clearly, logs are available to law enforcement vis-a-vis pre-paid calling cards when they wish to use them. Given the time between the bombing and the capture of at least one of the cards (3-4 days) I suspect those logs are available for at least a few days. Given that the prosecutors claim to be able to link the ANFO purchase via calling cards it is probably a lot longer. What is confusing are the reports that the calling card (or one of them) "bore the name Daryl Bridges." Pre-paid cards don't have names imprinted on them. They would have to have a spot to write them in deliberately. I haven't seen this on any and why would anyone (particularly as part of a criminal conspiracy) do such a thing? Keeping calling cards from leaking information probably isn't possible. Limiting the information leaked to that which is already known or is useless is probably the best bet. Using separate cards for separate operations / cells and immediate disposal seems pretty critical. Note something else, however. I haven't heard of any instances of real time calling card interception. One was described here on the list but that presupposes that a degree of surveillance already exists around the subject. All bets are pretty much off in that event. Calling cards are "after the fact" evidence, not preventative evidence. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. A. Hettinga > Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:10 PM > To: Thomas Shaddack; Cypherpunks > Subject: Re: Anonymity of prepaid phone chip-cards > > At 7:51 PM +0100 3/26/04, Thomas Shaddack wrote: > >I strongly suspect the usage logs exist for individual > cards, allowing > >to back-trace the phonecalls done with the given card, thus > tracing the > >identity of the card's owner by the call patterns. > > Of course. > > How do you think they caught the Oklahoma City bombers?
RE: the Black Bloc Corporation
What you are asking about (at Tort in any event) is the legal doctrine of
respondeat superior ("let the master answer") making the "master" liable for
certain acts of the "servant." An employer is therefore typically liable
for injury to person or property resulting from acts of an employee (See
Generally, Black's Law Dictionary).
There are lots of parallel ways to impose criminal liability in the same
fashion. The government's favorite is generally the rather notorious
concept of "conspiracy."
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Major Variola (ret)
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 12:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: the Black Bloc Corporation
>
> At 12:28 AM 3/26/04 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 09:43:53PM -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
> >> >If a member of a club, to which you belong, commits an act of
> violence,
> >> are you liable for that act?
> >>
> >
> > No, but if the "club", as an entity, does such, you should be.
>
> The "club" are protesters wearing black. Some protesters
> threw bricks.
> You're busted for their actions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
