'different' lawyers? perhaps you mean 'strange'? "hey that lawyer doesn't
wear clothes at the office...that's different! let me ask you a
constitutional question."
pz
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Aimee Farr
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2
> Mr. 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
> 7F5sYOSacEBhYOthmMajqjrXbEFeayL9k0nvy2Op
> 4ja6CgWweSZyFGYYZywMhffV8A6cZv0mLbhGTF1pE said: *grin*
> "Unmasking" is always disruptive, because one can never
> distinguish between
> an infiltrator or provocateur, and someone who
Sandy wrote:
> Aimee wrote:
Choate wrote: [has to be a better solution to all this "who wrote" stuff.]
> > > I've spent several hundred dollars
> > > having different lawyers review this
> > > suggestion and each has said it is
> > > legal. Not one of them liked it
> > > however. You are of course
Aimee wrote:
> > I've spent several hundred dollars
> > having different lawyers review this
> > suggestion and each has said it is
> > legal. Not one of them liked it
> > however. You are of course welcome
> > to your own opinion.
>
> Now THAT is FUNNY.
Yeah, I couldn't believe he actually sai
--
At 02:10 AM 4/4/2001 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
> The one thing you DON'T want to do is encourage individual
> vigilantism "unmasking" and unfounded paranoia.
Hostile infiltration is common and highly effective within radical
political groups, and is routinely used not only by the govern
Jim said:
> I've spent several hundred dollars having different lawyers review this
> suggestion and each has said it is legal. Not one of them liked it
> however. You are of course welcome to your own opinion.
Now THAT is FUNNY.
~Aimee
At 3:19 PM -0700 4/4/01, David Honig wrote:
>At 10:29 PM 4/4/01 +0200, Anonymous wrote:
...
> >If asked the question "have you ever communicated with [third party]",
>>could one plead the fifth if that communication was made through a
>>pseudonym, and tying that pseudonym to oneself could poten
At Wed, 4 Apr 2001 18:32:57 -0500 (CDT), Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Note that there's NO stipulation about 'if you can't afford an attorney
>one will be appointed to you'. Whether you're rich or poor the state
>is OBLIGED to provide you an attorney.
False. Most states require a
At 04:22 AM 4/4/2001 -0400, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
> I occasionally read articles on list, from the web through
>http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks. I've been following the Jim Bell
>case off and on, and more closely since you were subpoenaed. Amusing
>anecdote: At the start of CFP 2001,
