--
On 1 Sep 2001, at 16:12, Faustine wrote:
All I'm saying is that if the feds are doing their job well,
they won't stick out at all. Smells like a witch hunt.
Fortunately government employees seldom do their jobs well.
--digsig
James A. Donald
--
Whether Aimee is a fed or not, her quite genuine ignorance
made her incapable of knowing what views sounded
cypherpunkish, and what views sounded violently anti
cypherpunkish. If she is a fed, she probably also goes
around buying crack and pretending to be a thirteen year
Jim wrote:
On 31 Aug 2001, at 15:21, Faustine wrote:
Bah, it's dangerous to be so sure. And all the fevered talk
about Aimee being a fed is hysterical.
Feds tend to stick out in the same way she does. That does not
prove she is a fed of course, it is not even particularly good
evidence
--
On 29 Aug 2001, at 14:25, Faustine wrote:
Which reminds me, I don't know why people here seem to think
that any sort of deception operation would come from people
who show up using nyms to express unpopular opinions. (e.g.
you said something I don't want to hear; threfore its FUD
Jim wrote:
On 29 Aug 2001, at 14:25, Faustine wrote:
Which reminds me, I don't know why people here seem to think
that any sort of deception operation would come from people
who show up using nyms to express unpopular opinions. (e.g.
you said something I don't want to hear; threfore its
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 01:30:42PM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
I would say something, but I've been reminded that you're supposed to let
convicts dig their own graves.
Come, Aimee, I've said before that you are educable. You can do more
than post repetitive look-out-or-you'll-spend-time-in-prison
John Young writes:
Motherfucking sonsofbitching shiteaters.
Of course, this is just part of the continuing trend in defining crimes
by the subjective fantasies of a party claiming to be aggrieved.
*I'M* afraid, therefore *YOU'RE* stalking.
*I'M* ashamed, therefore *YOU'RE* indecent.
*I'M*
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Eric Cordian wrote:
The larger question is what are we going to do about it? Somehow
Cypherpunks Write Code doesn't quite rise to the level of an
appropriate response to these pigfuckers.
The most appropriate response would seem to implement
Aimee Farr could be a nice lady lawyer who just appeared
here by serendip or a ... MS shiteater operating under the
entrapment rules of IRS investigation manual.
Speaking what my nose tells me about Aimee's taunts
and ear licks here, and after smelling the shit spread in
Tanner's courtroom,
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, John Young wrote:
Tanner's courtroom, she's very dirty. Jeff and Rob and the
undercover agents behaved exactly the same and
relished displaying the effect of their sucker punches
to the jury.
But that's no excuse for JB not sucker punching back. The only reason for
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, John Young wrote:
See 9-page judgment in TIF format:
http://cryptome.org/jdb-hit.tif (262KB)
In addition to 10 years Jim was also fined $10,000 due
immediately and faces three years of probation. No
computer use and a long list of other prohibitions
including no
See 9-page judgment in TIF format:
http://cryptome.org/jdb-hit.tif (262KB)
In addition to 10 years Jim was also fined $10,000 due
immediately and faces three years of probation. No
computer use and a long list of other prohibitions
including no direct or indirect contact with the
victim
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, John Young wrote:
Motherfucking sonsofbitching shiteaters.
If this supposed to have been deterrence, it fully backfired. It
introduced polarization, and makes acts as Mc Veigh's less loony.
As a direct result of this decision people will get killed eventually.
I've been typing in the cpunks address in reply for months,
and don't mind, after reading about a host of problems
associated with automatic replies and cc's and hidden
header information that doesn't show up kiddie-script
mailers.
And nothing I've written about avoiding private contact
with Jim
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 10:51:28AM -0700, Eric Murray wrote:
Too bad no technical people were called upon to explain
how group reply works and why many people send copies
to both the original poster and to the list without intending
any direct communication with the poster that they're
John,
Can you post that in another format? Individual JPGs or GIFs or PDF?
My version of Photoshop can't open the TIFF file you posted.
-Declan
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 12:12:03PM -0700, John Young wrote:
See 9-page judgment in TIF format:
http://cryptome.org/jdb-hit.tif (262KB)
In
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Eugene Leitl wrote:
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:41:23 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Eugene Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: John Young [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: CDR: Re: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison
On Sat, 25 Aug
I don't always monitor folders, for me a CC is a courtesy.
~Aimee
1. Email sent individually to someone reaches them faster than
when replying to the list. I've often had half-day lag times in
the past with cypherpunks.
2. Email sent individually to someone will reach them when the
list
Declan - I've found that Irfanview is an excellent tool for
reading lots of different graphics formats, including TIFF.
Available at the usual download sites.
At 01:00 PM 08/25/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
John,
Can you post that in another format? Individual JPGs or GIFs or PDF?
My
We'll have up this weekend a 180-page report by the Defense
Science Board on Protecting the Homeland -- Defensive
Information Operations, a study conducted in the summer of
2000, published in March 2001, which describes in detail
multi-billion dollar proposals for combating threats to the
US by
Other coverage:
http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=01/08/25/1849248
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 02:13:33PM -0700, John Young wrote:
Judgment converted to PDF:
http://cryptome.org/jdb-hit.pdf (404KB)
So does anyone know who's handling Jim's appeal or is he proceeding in
forma pauperis, or is he declining to appeal?
DCF
At 11:41 AM 8/25/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Two consecutive (not concurrent) sentences, sez the judge yesterday. Jim
made a statement to the court. Judge agreed with
Jim is appealing. He's off to the Supremes, as I wrote about in June, after
the 9th Circuit dissed him:
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,44567,00.html
Don't recall who's handling it; I'd have to see if I can dig up those
papers (and I just had my office repainted, so it's a mess). Robert
23 matches
Mail list logo
