Re: Masks [was: Re: About 5yr. log retention]

2000-12-09 Thread Anonymous
Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oklahoma has a state statute prohibiting mask wearing (note the > exceptions): > > ยง 1301. Masks and hoods--Unlawful to wear--Exceptions > > It shall be unlawful for any person in this state to wear a mask, hood > or covering, which conceals the identit

Re: Masks [was: Re: About 5yr. log retention]

2000-12-09 Thread Peter Capelli
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: Re: Masks [was: Re: About 5yr. log retention] On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 10:06:03PM +0100, Anonymous wrote: > > I was unable to locate any other states with statutes addressing "mask > w

Re: Masks [was: Re: About 5yr. log retention]

2000-12-09 Thread Greg Broiles
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 10:06:03PM +0100, Anonymous wrote: > > I was unable to locate any other states with statutes addressing "mask > wearing" in public (without intent to commit burglary). No doubt the rest > of the offending rules are ordinances instead. > Also see 18 USC 242 and 42 USC 19

Re: Masks [was: Re: About 5yr. log retention]

2000-12-09 Thread Anonymous
Ond 12/09/2000, Ray Dillinger wrote: > It is illegal in Georgia, and a number of other Southern states of the > US, to appear in public wearing a mask. > Not that it's usually enforced on anybody but the Ku Klux Klan. > Dunno about other countries and other states. In "Church of the America

Re: RE: Re: About 5yr. log retention

2000-12-07 Thread Me
- Original Message - From: "Tom Vogt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [re: Muslim women in vail, uncovering] > that would be interesting to watch. for those people, the > "masquerade" is NON optional, and - as I understand it > - they simply can't give in. contrary to all the internet privacy, > where

Re: Re: About 5yr. log retention

2000-12-06 Thread John Young
Jim Choate blindly wrote: >What law? The law was quoted just below the citation we provided: 18 USC 2703(f). The news report quotation exactly matches what the law says about preservation. Not that you'll read it but here it is again: Here's the source for news story report about data preserv

Re: Re: About 5yr. log retention

2000-12-05 Thread mmotyka
Jim Choate wrote : >On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, John Young wrote: > >> But that is trivial compared to your claim that you decide what is evidence >> and that it then becomes illegal to alter or destroy it. That appears to be >> playing cop without the authority. > >No John, that is not my claim. You wish

RE: About 5yr. log retention

2000-12-05 Thread Carskadden, Rush
Title: RE: About 5yr. log retention Thanks for the cite, I was just about to stir it up. Anyone still want to see an example order? ok, Rush -Original Message- From: John Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 8:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re