sjackson@pro-smof.cts.com (Steve Jackson) (01/07/91)
There may be federal investigators who can efficiently deal with any kind of hardware, but there are also some who don't have a clue. Case in point: Of the three computers seized from my office, one was totally wrecked when it was returned. There's every reason to believe the damage occurred - or at least started - before they got it to their investigation site. Thus, if we HAD been wicked people, the investigators themselves might have destroyed the evidence. And this wasn't some local bunch; this was the US Secret Service.
lazlo@triton.cirt.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) (01/08/91)
sjackson@pro-smof.cts.com (Steve Jackson) writes: > There may be federal investigators who can efficiently deal with any kind of > hardware, but there are also some who don't have a clue. Case in point: Of > the three computers seized from my office, one was totally wrecked when it > was returned. This has abolutely nothing to do with the agents' abilities to handle the hardware properly; as someone who's lived in the computer underground (or at least at the fringes, of late) for six or seven years I can safely say that any damage to your hardware when you get it back from the Bureau is *intentional*. It happens too consistently in cases where hardware is seized as "evidence" and then returned with no charges filed to be mere all-thumbs coincidence. They are trying to teach you a "lesson". Lazlo (lazlo@triton.cirt.unm.edu) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lox...for everyone!
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") (01/08/91)
In article <6765@crash.cts.com> sjackson@pro-smof.cts.com (Steve Jackson) writes: >Case in point: Of >the three computers seized from my office, one was totally wrecked when it >was returned. There's every reason to believe the damage occurred - or at >least started - before they got it to their investigation site. Thus, if we Is there any way for you to get reimbursed for the machine? If not, then the SS doesn't even *need* evidence -- they just hit you, confiscate equipment, and return it a week later in non-functional condition. -- J. Eric Townsend Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Systems Mangler - UH Dept. of Mathematics - (713) 749-2120 Motorola skates on Intel's head!
grendel@sumax.seattleu.edu (Grendel) (01/08/91)
sjackson@pro-smof.cts.com (Steve Jackson) writes: > There may be federal investigators who can efficiently deal with any kind of > hardware, but there are also some who don't have a clue. Case in point: Of > the three computers seized from my office, one was totally wrecked when it > was returned. There's every reason to believe the damage occurred - or at > least started - before they got it to their investigation site. Thus, if we > HAD been wicked people, the investigators themselves might have destroyed > the evidence. And this wasn't some local bunch; this was the US Secret > Service. Don't they bother to train anyone or even brief them about this kind of stuff? Seems kind of stupid for them to go to all of that trouble and then to break it while getting the hardware. Oh well, it's only the government. *----------------------------------------------------------------------* * Grendel, SysOp of The Sacred Grove Bulletin Board System * * The Pagan and Magic BBS for the Pacific Northwest * * (206)634-1980 Seattle WA * *----------------------------------------------------------------------*
floyd@ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) (01/08/91)
In article <1991Jan7.220954.25909@lavaca.uh.edu> jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") writes: >In article <6765@crash.cts.com> sjackson@pro-smof.cts.com (Steve Jackson) writes: >>Case in point: Of >>the three computers seized from my office, one was totally wrecked when it >>was returned. There's every reason to believe the damage occurred - or at >>least started - before they got it to their investigation site. Thus, if we > >Is there any way for you to get reimbursed for the machine? If not, >then the SS doesn't even *need* evidence -- they just hit you, confiscate >equipment, and return it a week later in non-functional condition. Ahhh, NO??? Nice police officers would never do a thing like that. It would be a nasty thing to do and folks would end up calling them by nasty names, like 'copper' or 'pig' maybe. :-) :-) Actually they are human and yes the various police forces have and will continue to do just that. They are well aware that they have the power to put a big bite in your butt without ever getting you near the cell they honestly feel you belong in. Sincerely Cynical, Floyd -- Floyd L. Davidson floyd@ims.alaska.edu Salcha, AK 99714 paycheck connection to Alascom, Inc. When I speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry.
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (01/10/91)
In article <1991Jan7.220954.25909@lavaca.uh.edu> jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") writes: >Is there any way for you to get reimbursed for the machine? If not, >then the SS doesn't even *need* evidence -- they just hit you, confiscate >equipment, and return it a week later in non-functional condition. This is related to another increasingly popular technique which is roughly "sue them until they can't afford it any more". This has happened with businesses moving into small towns where citizens are trying to change the zoning laws (or see that they are enforced). It is also being used against "Adam and Eve", a mail-order house specializing in erotic videos and sexual items. The feds have threatened to bring suit against them in every state in the Union - one at a time. -- Alfalfa Software, Inc. | motif-request@alfalfa.com nazgul@alfalfa.com |----------------------------------- 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | Proline BBS: 617/641-3722 I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (01/10/91)
In article <1991Jan10.035939.26587@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: > >Len Rose, Craig Neidorf, Rich Andrews, Dr. RipCo, and others deserve nothing >less. Those of you at the EFF have the money and the names in this industry >to do the job right -- take the government to the task, educate the public, >and STOP the outrageous abuses our government is currently persuing. > >Assisting one person in a fight against the government is good. Don't >misunderstand my intentions here. But the root of the problem isn't one >case, or even a dozen. It's a government mad with power, and a populace >that doesn't understand the implications. > >If you're in this for some free press, and a good name for yourself, you're >doing no one any good at all. You're really harming the cause -- by >deflecting debate and attention from where it belongs. That focus belongs >on the destruction of checks and balances in the legal system, not on >individual cases that you feel have "merit". Our legal strategy is built upon the fact that we need to pursue individual cases to establish the rights that should apply to everyone. Right now, the government is taking very little notice of the First and Fourth Amendment rights of BBS operators and participants, and of computer users in general. In order to lay the groundwork for anyone to sue the government in these kinds of cases, we must choose some key cases in order to establish these rights. The federal court system requires that we follow the Article III restriction that our litigation be of a genuine "Case or Controversy." Hence we must begin by working with individual plaintiffs and defendants until the rights in question are well-recognized by the judicial system. For in-depth discussions of the limits on access to the federal courts, see THE LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS, 4th Edition, 1983, by Charles Alan Wright. (This should be available in any legal bookstore.) For a discussion of how a litigation strategy builds the groundwork for establishing legal rights, see SIMPLE JUSTICE, by Richard Kluger, which is a readable historical account of how the NAACP legal division laid the legal groundwork for an end to segregated school systems. As we have noted in previous publications and in our first newsletter, we are also active on the legislative and educational fronts. We do not assume that a litigation strategy by itself will establish the kind of rights for computer users that we want to see established. I think you'll find, Karl, that the references I have cited here go a long way toward explaining why the EFF *must* choose individual cases at this point. If you have further suggestions about how to modify EFF's legal strategy, please feel free to contact me at the phone number in my .signature. Thanks for your feedback. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 |"If the doors of perception were cleansed mnemonic@eff.org | every thing would appear to man as it is, Electronic Frontier | infinite." Foundation | --Blake
jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) (01/11/91)
Suing for the purpose of harassment is illegal. It's called barratry. I believe a Federal official might be individually sued if he did that.
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (01/11/91)
In article <1991Jan10.035939.26587@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >Let's not forget that you can't sue the government, any prosecutor, or >anyone who helps in such an investigation unless the government lets >you do it. That is terrible. I'm going to post 'Civil Disobedience.' I think it would be a good idea, an inspirational piece. (Is is copyrighted? Even if it is, I don't think Thourou (sp?) would mind.) -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (01/14/91)
In article <286@kumr.UUCP> kamins@kumr.UUCP (Scot Kamins) writes: >In article <1991Jan10.035939.26587@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: > >>If you're in this for some free press, and a good name for yourself (etc.) > >Mr. Denninger has apparently forgotten about whom he's speaking. Mssrs Wozniak, >Kapor, Barlow, Gilmore, and the other members of EFF's board are in no need of >any more "good name" than they have collectively and individuallly garnered >for themselves over the years in the computer world. As for "free press," I'm >sure that these guys have all they need! These people are to be praised for >their historic and current good works for <<ALL OF US<<, not chastised for not >saving the entire electronic world in one day! Actually, I do very much appreciate what is being done here. What I don't find laudable is the method in which it is being approached. This problem is not localized to the electronic frontier, as they call it. As such, treating only one small part of the illness isn't going to solve the entire malignancy. It >might< get the electronic frontier an exception to the rule(s) -- THIS TIME. My posting was an honest attempt to find out what was being done, and why. While people who run public-access systems, and work in the electronic industries are being targeted, they are not the only ones! The fact remains that our society is degenerating into a police state, and these abuses upon certain members of our electronic community are a SYMPTOM, not the problem itself. The seizure of assets prior to trial, indicting a person on 75 different counts due to one supposedly-illegal action, the attendant coercion and browbeating that goes on, the destruction of people's earnings capacity, and the general "witch hunt" mentality permeates all facets of society today. It all boils down to a disregard for the liberties and freedoms we have codified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the systematic destruction of these liberties, and the eventual creation of a police state. It began with the "drug war" a few years ago. The law was perverted to allow the seizure of "drug dealers" property, even from people who weren't charged with a crime. Ex-Governor of Florida Bob Martinez actually sanctioned the Volusia County Sherrif's seizure of cash from people travelling on their roads, without warrant or probable cause, and without arresting the people in question! THIS IS STILL GOING ON TODAY and has brought in over 2 MILLION dollars from persons who were never charged with a crime or convicted of any wrongdoing. Their only crime was having too much green money on them at the moment when they got stopped for speeding. The last time I checked, simply having money (in ANY amount) was not against the law! In any event, even if that money WAS from illegal practices, the government is supposed to prove that before they can take your property! Suddenly, that same kind of mentality and procedure shows up in Operation Sun Devil and the RIPCO case! Note that neither of these cases ended up being successfully prosecuted -- yet neither have the people affected received their assets back, or compensation for the (illegal) harassment and disruption to their lives! In the Jolnet case Rich Andrews wasn't even charged with a crime! It's my firm belief that these people will >NEVER< be compensated for what the government has done to them; the wrongs they have suffered at it's whim. The people directly responsible will be allowed to continue their reign of terror with the full knowledge and approval of their employers...... Sounds familiar, doesn't it? It's the old idea of "you must have done something wrong, even though we can't prove it, so we're going to fine you this piece of property EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE, UNDER THE LAW, INNOCENT". Now, is the problem one of the electronic frontier? I think not. The problem with focusing the attention in one place is that it misses the mark. You treat the symptoms rather than the disease. As long as the disease runs it's course, the situation gets worse and worse. Oh sure, perhaps we can get a "by" this time in the electronic frontier -- but not for long. This problem has to be stopped AT THE SOURCE. Legislation has to be introduced, pushed and passed that strengthens the individual's rights against our marauding government. Jurors everywhere need education so as to find people "NOT GUILTY" when they have committed no crime. People need to be educated so that they will demand and have that jury trial and be acquitted. Pre-trial seizure of assets, in ALL facets of society, has to be outlawed without exception. Just recompense needs to be made available, at the expense of the individuals who promulgated and facilitated these harassment cases, to the victims of government "strong-arm" tactics. These changes will make a difference. Nothing less will change the path we are on. To profess otherwise is to miss the forest for the tree. The forest is closing in around all of us in the USA. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto) (01/14/91)
Just to clear up one point: Doc Ripco was not charged either. His computers were just seized. No charges have been filed against him, and I don't think they will be. Isn't it obvious what the SS really did? They got a list of boards that carry anarchy/hacking/phreaking/etc. files and busted them jsut to find out what they had on them. At the least, they got rid of what they consider a nuisance, and at most they found something illegal with which to prosecute. They had no real probable cause in any of these situations which I can see past the point that these boards had text files which talked about borderline things.The SS was just sending in a line to see what they could catch. Unfortunately the line destroyed a lot of equipment and reputations, not to mention it is probably causing Jefferson et. al. to roll over in their graves. It is also obvious that the agents carrying out these warrants have no real knowledge about computers. The "leads" they follow are due more or less to confusion about computers. I don't think Agent Foley was malicious when he cited the Kermit explanation on the warrant affidavit. I think he didn't know what the hell Kermit was and it looked suspicious since it was in conjunction with a decipering scheme. The judge obviously didn't know what Kermit was otherwise he wouldn't have granted the warrant on just that. Of course, I'm not telepathic, nor am I Agent Foley. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. The REAL problem is that the law enforcement agencies, the courts, and the public in general don't know enough about how things go on down here and how computers operate to effectively and FAIRLY make decisions on certain aspects. This is where the EFF can excel, Mr. Denninger. I think it isdoing a good job right now. The federal agencies have always kept records on people, but rarely do they persecute innocent people. The reason they have done so here is that they don't know what the heck they're doing. We need the EFF and power organizations like them to help society come to terms with the technology. I'm not condoning what they're doing, but I am trying to point out that it might not have happened if people were more educated about what is really going on.
wcs) (01/14/91)
In article <1991Jan13.191251.28841@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
]This problem has to be stopped AT THE SOURCE. Legislation has to be
]introduced, pushed and passed that strengthens the individual's rights
]against our marauding government. Jurors everywhere need education so as
]to find people "NOT GUILTY" when they have committed no crime. People need
]to be educated so that they will demand and have that jury trial and be
]acquitted. Pre-trial seizure of assets, in ALL facets of society, has to
]be outlawed without exception. Just recompense needs to be made available,
]at the expense of the individuals who promulgated and facilitated
]these harassment cases, to the victims of government "strong-arm" tactics.
Of course you're correct. But there are a bunch of things that can
be done to help the problem:
- educating the public about the abuses of government
- educating the legislators about the unwillingness of the public to
accept this "long train of abuses".
- defending individuals against harassment
- making it clear to the Polizei that they can't win all the time,
and making it expensive for them, in time, money, and reputation.
- suing them successfully when they violate the laws in actionable ways.
Part of this is done by education and lobbying, but a major technique
is to start defending people, and winning, one case at a time.
By winning a few big "anti-hacker" cases, and maximizing the public
noise they make, the Polizei are improving their reputation as
"Protectors of the Public", and nothing succeeds like success.
By helping individuals defend themselves against the State,
and publicizing the kind of crap the State is doing, the EFF is doing a
lot of good for society as a whole as well as for teh individuals they help.
And in the legal business, every precedent that gets set has a major
influence on future cases, especially at the opening of a new field of law.
Way to go, guys!!
--
Pray for peace;
Bill
# Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ
# "I can see all Southeast Asia, I can see El Salvador, ..."karish@mindcraft.com (Chuck Karish) (01/14/91)
In article <1991Jan14.032648.5638@cbnewsh.att.com> wcs@cbnewsh.att.com ](Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs) writes: ]In article <1991Jan13.191251.28841@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM ](Karl Denninger) writes: ]]This problem has to be stopped AT THE SOURCE. Legislation has to be ]]introduced, pushed and passed that strengthens the individual's rights ]]against our marauding government. [ ... ] ]]Pre-trial seizure of assets, in ALL facets of society, has to ]]be outlawed without exception. Just recompense needs to be made available... ]Of course you're correct. But there are a bunch of things that can ]be done to help the problem: ]- educating the public about the abuses of government ]- educating the legislators about the unwillingness of the public to ] accept this "long train of abuses". ]- defending individuals against harassment ]- making it clear to the Polizei that they can't win all the time, ] and making it expensive for them, in time, money, and reputation. ]- suing them successfully when they violate the laws in actionable ways. ] ]Part of this is done by education and lobbying, but a major technique ]is to start defending people, and winning, one case at a time. Remember, we're talking about taking significant discretionary power away from the executive branch. This requires real, goal-oriented political action; `education' programs don't cut it. The ACLU has been using all the suggested approaches for as long as it's been in existence. Even so, the government continues to chip away at the Bill of Rights. Let's not kid ourselves about the magnitude of this task. It'll be a long time before large numbers of voters start asking their representatives `what have you done to defend civil rights' before they ask `what have you done for me lately'. -- Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com Mindcraft, Inc. (415) 323-9000
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (01/14/91)
In article <663830222.20770@mindcraft.com>, karish@mindcraft.com (Chuck Karish) writes: > In article <1991Jan14.032648.5638@cbnewsh.att.com> wcs@cbnewsh.att.com > ](Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs) writes: > ]In article <1991Jan13.191251.28841@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM > ](Karl Denninger) writes: > ]]This problem has to be stopped AT THE SOURCE. Legislation has to be > ]]introduced, pushed and passed that strengthens the individual's rights > ]]against our marauding government. [ ... ] > ]]Pre-trial seizure of assets, in ALL facets of society, has to > ]]be outlawed without exception. Just recompense needs to be made available... > > ]Of course you're correct. But there are a bunch of things that can > ]be done to help the problem: > ]- educating the public about the abuses of government > ]- educating the legislators about the unwillingness of the public to > ] accept this "long train of abuses". > ]- defending individuals against harassment > ]- making it clear to the Polizei that they can't win all the time, > ] and making it expensive for them, in time, money, and reputation. > ]- suing them successfully when they violate the laws in actionable ways. > ] > ]Part of this is done by education and lobbying, but a major technique > ]is to start defending people, and winning, one case at a time. > > Remember, we're talking about taking significant discretionary power > away from the executive branch. This requires real, goal-oriented > political action; `education' programs don't cut it. We are not talking about reducing the discretionary powers of the executive. We are talking about reducing harassment and abuse of power. This starts out at the low end with giving tickets for which the cost of fighting the ticket is greater than the cost of paying it. Pulling drivers over on groundless suspicion, and causing them a loss of time, is another. A high end example is that of government agents pressuring DeLorean by threats into agreeing to participate in a drug operation; the subsequent prosecution and trial broke up his marriage and cost millions of dollars. > The ACLU has been using all the suggested approaches for as long as > it's been in existence. Even so, the government continues to chip away > at the Bill of Rights. The ACLU has been using a few of the approaches in sometimes upholding some of the Constitutional rights, mainly in criminal trials. It ignores many of the rights, and has done little about the harassment issue. > Let's not kid ourselves about the magnitude of this task. It'll be a > long time before large numbers of voters start asking their > representatives `what have you done to defend civil rights' before they > ask `what have you done for me lately'. The problem is one of immunity. Only recently has the Supreme Court allowed prosecution of individual members of local executives, and city and county governments, for actual physical damages. Recently, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld a judgment against the mayor of Gary and one other official for refusing to grant pistol carry permits. I believe that this is the first case of this kind. At the present time, a prosecutor risks nothing for such harassment unless s/he harasses a popular person or group. A policeman is at little risk for harassment, or even false arrest. Now I am quite willing to believe that John Gotti (reputed to be the Mafia boss) is every bit as bad as the prosecutors claim he is, but that does not give them the moral right to keep bringing him to trial on extremely flimsy, at best, charges. To protect the public, there has to be some executive immunity. But at least loss of government employment rights should be in place for those who are not most circumspect. As the late John W Campbell states, It is not power that corrupts, it is immunity. I would suggest that a start toward this would be that if a police officer shows the slightest disrespect to someone in the line of duty (no, I do not mean whether or not he uses "sir") this should mean automatic suspension without pay for the first offense. This should continue up the line. The onus should be on the individual; it is no good to impose penalties on organizations. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet) {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)
mark@DRD.Com (Mark Lawrence) (01/15/91)
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) wrote: [...] } It began with the "drug war" a few years ago. The law was perverted to allow } the seizure of "drug dealers" property, even from people who weren't charged } with a crime. Ex-Governor of Florida Bob Martinez actually sanctioned the } Volusia County Sherrif's seizure of cash from people travelling on their } roads, without warrant or probable cause, and without arresting the people } in question! THIS IS STILL GOING ON TODAY and has brought in over 2 MILLION } dollars from persons who were never charged with a crime or convicted of any } wrongdoing. [...] Case in point in Oklahama. Steven Zerifis, an owner/operator of a small tree-trimming business, was stopped by law officers while he was returning from Michigan on a combination fishing trip/equipment hunting trip (he claims). He had $7,000 in cash on him. The drug dogs reacted to a substance on the cash, which is considered sufficient evidence of intent, and the cash was siezed. It turns out that cash siezed in such transactions is turned back into general circulation without any kind of cleaning! Therefore, _anybody_ could be holding cash tainted by previous holders turned over to law agencies in legitimate (?) confiscations. At least in Oklahoma, any cash one carries could be at risk of seizure. -- mark@DRD.Com mark@jnoc.go.jp $B!J%^!<%/!!!&%m!<%l%s%9!K(B
learn@igloo.scum.com (Bill HMRP Vajk) (01/15/91)
In article <28841@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Karl Denninger writes one of his better rants: > Jurors everywhere need education so as to find people "NOT GUILTY" > when they have committed no crime. Juries are charged with determining whether an individual has violated laws, not whether a crime was committed. Unfortunately this distinction is lost for some large portion of our population. Should juries begin to vote based on conscience involving their personal views of "crime" instead of following current proceedure, the challenges necessary to review the law itself would cease. I think we are left with a choice, Karl. Change this aspect of the system to benefit charged individuals (perhaps) at the cost to all of society, or let the first case run the hurdles and challenge the applied law, at an expense to the individual but to the benefit of society at large by imposition of better laws. This is why foundations such as EFF are necessary. Generally an individual cannot afford the expenses associated with such challenges. One of the features of our socio-economic clime is that when a need arises, the demand is always filled. Given the short history we have with the particular laws under discussion, I think it amazing that the response has manifested so quickly and so effectively. Bill Vajk | An excess of law inescapably weakens the rule of law. | - Laurence H. Tribe
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (01/16/91)
In article <3277@igloo.scum.com> learn@igloo.scum.com (Bill HMRP Vajk) writes: >In article <28841@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Karl Denninger writes one of his better rants: > >> Jurors everywhere need education so as to find people "NOT GUILTY" >> when they have committed no crime. > >Juries are charged with determining whether an individual has violated >laws, not whether a crime was committed. Unfortunately this distinction >is lost for some large portion of our population. This is just not true. A jury's job is to determine whether a crime that deserves punishment was committed in criminal and civil cases. The most obvious of these are civil cases where the award (set by jury) is $1.00....... even though the defendant is found "guilty". >Should juries begin to vote based on conscience involving their personal >views of "crime" instead of following current proceedure, the challenges >necessary to review the law itself would cease. I refer you to the following case and constitutional citations.... Constitution of Maryland, Art 15, Sec 5: In the trial of all criminal cases the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact... Constitution of Indiana, Art 1, Sec 19: In all criminal cases whatsoever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts. U.S. vs Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969: If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence... If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision. U.S. vs Dougherty, D. C. Court of Appeals, 1972: [The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge... The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its perogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law. A Jury can, by returning an innocent verdict, ignore the facts of the case and state that it believes the law is unjust, the circumstances justified the action, or any other message it wishes to impart. The Jury is the FINAL arbitrer of justice. As long as jurors know their right to acquit, regardless of evidence, the ultimate check and balance against an unjust law remains intact. This is why the right to a jury trial is so important. The facts of a case can be easily determined by a judge. Only a jury provides final peer review of the legal system's caprice -- by those who are the accused's peers. The attempt of the government to remove the right to a jury trial, which is increasing, is EXTREMELY dangerous -- that final "peer review" of the law is lost forever. It is that final review which is the most important safeguard an accused person has when on trial for an alleged offense. Of course, you'll never hear a judge cite these references to a jury. In fact, it's explicitly against courtroom procedure in several states. Nonetheless, the right to judge the law exists in the jury, as you can see from the above. It's just not in the state's interest (which wrote the courtroom procedure, you see) to let people know about it. It is to EVERYONE's benefit that jurors know all of this, and that they know their REAL responsibilities and rights. >I think we are left with a choice, Karl. Change this aspect of the system >to benefit charged individuals (perhaps) at the cost to all of society, or >let the first case run the hurdles and challenge the applied law, at an >expense to the individual but to the benefit of society at large by >imposition of better laws. Consider that in parts of Kentucky they have stopped trying to prosecute people for growing marijuana since they can't get a conviction. This despite the fact that people get caught with fields full of it -- the citizens of the area, who are on the jury, refuse to convict and send those people to jail. In fact, 60 minutes a few months back had a big sequence on it -- bemoaning the fact that the poor government couldn't jail these "lawbreakers". They conveniently forgot to mention that the people on the jury simply didn't think the accused did anything wrong -- certainly nothing worth imprisoning a person over! If jurors would exercise this right, we wouldn't need to repeal bad laws - they'd have no effect at all regardless of their passage. Our system of trial by jury has all the safeguards one needs -- as long as it's allowed to function as intended. Currently it's hog-tied -- we have laws which bypass the right to due process entirely, and a lack of information in the jury box during courtroom proceedings. >This is why foundations such as EFF are necessary. Generally an individual >cannot afford the expenses associated with such challenges. One of the features >of our socio-economic clime is that when a need arises, the demand is always >filled. Given the short history we have with the particular laws under >discussion, I think it amazing that the response has manifested so quickly and >so effectively. If the Jury knows their rights, and feels that a person is undeserving of punishment, then the expenses aren't necessary. Appearing in court for trial is sufficient. Let's FIX THE PROBLEM rather than toss money at it. A fully-informed jury ammendment, or failing that, full-page advertisements in every major newspaper, just might do the job. It's bound to be cheaper than fighting this one case at a time. Additionally, it has the benefit of working across societial boundaries, rather than just "for our benefit". Educating America on the Electronic Frontier and an ammendment requiring that juries be informed of their right to judge both law and fact would neatly destroy the threat of imprisonment. The repeal of RICO and related legislation would destroy the threat of theft by government agents (prior to conviction -- which is all anyone is or has a right to complain about). Those two items, all alone, would solve this problem for the Electronic Frontier and the rest of society. Add in legislation specifically authorizing just recompense for those tried and acquitted and you'd have the problem licked cold. No more Operation Sun Devils. No more Jolnets and RIPCOs. No more McMartin Preschool trials. A single case of malice like McMartin would end up bankrupting everyone in the government involved in the case -- which is as it should be. People who set out to destroy others deserve whatever they get, and just recompense should be available to those harmed by these folks. It's time we took our heads out of the sand as Americans. We currently imprison more of our population on a per capita basis than any other country in the world. We recently overtook South Africa and a few other countries to earn this distinction -- and 60% of those prisoners are non-violent "political" prisoners in jail for offenses like consensual drug use. It is long past the time when Americans should stand up and be counted against this kind of oppression. The electronic frontier is taking only a very small part of the punishment being levied unjustly against all Americans. Will we respond and put a stop to this insanity or waste resources on an insignificant part of the real issue? If you really want to make a difference, there's a way to do it. Get your name in the history books as the savior of our Constitution and Bill of Rights and solve the Electronic Frontier's (and lots of other people's) problem with the government all at once. The choice is ours. For the minute at least. Tomorrow we may lose the ability to choose or act on this matter. >Bill Vajk | An excess of law inescapably weakens the rule of law. > | - Laurence H. Tribe I'd love to get in line with such a movement. Alas, it appears the people of this country don't have the backbone to take on such a task. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (01/17/91)
Then that means that the TV show, LA Law, is misinforming the public about this. I think that many people watch this show and take what they say as fact. (As I used to.) Something must me done. Yet, "I know not what to do." -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
learn@igloo.scum.com (Bill HMRP Vajk) (01/18/91)
In article <3800@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Karl Denninger writes: > In article <3277@igloo.scum.com> Bill HMRP Vajk writes: >>In article <28841@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Karl Denninger writes: > >> Jurors everywhere need education so as to find people "NOT GUILTY" > >> when they have committed no crime. > >Juries are charged with determining whether an individual has violated > >laws, not whether a crime was committed. Unfortunately this distinction > >is lost for some large portion of our population. > A jury's job is to determine whether a crime that deserves punishment was > committed in criminal and civil cases. I see the distinction is easily lost...... > >Should juries begin to vote based on conscience involving their personal > >views of "crime" instead of following current proceedure, the challenges > >necessary to review the law itself would cease. > The Jury is the FINAL arbitrer of justice. As long as jurors know their > right to acquit, regardless of evidence, the ultimate check and balance > against an unjust law remains intact. If this is true, then we can save all that money and do away with the entire system of appeals and the Supreme court, with the exception of one justice to administer oaths of office to high federal officials. > Consider that in parts of Kentucky they have stopped trying to prosecute > people for growing marijuana since they can't get a conviction. Right on, in Kentucky, and for right now. The rest of this point should be obvious. > Our system of trial by jury has all the safeguards one needs -- as long as > it's allowed to function as intended. Currently it's hog-tied -- we have > laws which bypass the right to due process entirely, and a lack of > information in the jury box during courtroom proceedings. Given that a trial is "by a jury of peers" you may not begin their civics education in that jury box. If they need more education, it is as citizens, from among whom they were selected as a representative subset. > If the Jury knows their rights, and feels that a person is undeserving of > punishment, then the expenses aren't necessary. Appearing in court for > trial is sufficient. So now we don't need attorneys any more either ? I thought you were the one who was going to hold government agents at bay with your words till your attorney arrived, give your attorney and the government backup tapes of your system and then send them on their way still in posession of your equipment. We arrive quite rapidly at the question whether you'd enjoy the idea of flying in a commercial airliner where you knew the pilot earned $ 20,000 per annum. Did you say you'd settle for a $20K per annum attorney ? > A fully-informed jury ammendment, or failing that, full-page advertisements > in every major newspaper, just might do the job. Right. Where are you going to put this in the papers ? On the sports page ? Next to Heloise ? And just who will administer the quiz ? Bill.etc
mahrk@ccicpg.UUCP (MHR {who?}) (01/18/91)
In <1991Jan16.231839.17018@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM writes: > > Then that means that the TV show, LA Law, is misinforming the > public about this. I think that many people watch this show and take > what they say as fact. (As I used to.) > Something must me done. > > Yet, "I know not what to do." > > -- > zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM I know it's sometimes a pain to weed through an inclusion to delete the irrelevant (or un-addressed) parts of another posting in order to post your response. However, in this case I have no idea what you are talking about. I have been following this thread for some time and I don't recall any reference to L.A. Law here. Would you please explain what you mean here? I'm very interested, and quite serious. BTW, L.A. Law is chock full of legal misinformation, so your statement comes as no surprise to me, but I wonder _which_ specific item of misinformation your post attacks. A good example of this was on last week's (January 10) show - the prosecutor in the burglary-murder case made every possible mistake in trying to get the guy (who claimed to have raped the victim who subsequently committed suicide) convicted and sent to the gas chamber. I don't believe for one second that a prosecutor in a first degree murder trial would 1) fail to allege all lesser homicide charges, thereby allowing the jury to convict for a lesser crime rather than simply acquit, 2) drop sure convictions, like the burglary and aggravated assault, when the defendant has just testified under oath that he committed those acts, or 3) present such a lame excuse for trying to get the man executed when the primary objective should have been to get him out of society for as long as possible (IMHO). If they're going to try the man, they usually charge him with everything they have until or unless a plea bargain is offered. Legally speaking, most of the time L.A. Law sucks. -- Mark A. Hull-Richter UUCP: ccicpg!mahrk Clever remark stolen from ICL North America InterNet: [coming soon] another netter: 9801 Muirlands Blvd Go ahead, flame me. I have Irvine, CA 92713 (714)458-7282x4539 a /dev/null on my machine.
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (01/19/91)
That's why we all should read "Civil Disobedience." It is the only way we will be able to get anything done. -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
maddox@blake.u.washington.edu (Tom Maddox) (01/28/91)
I'd like to stick my nose into this one long enough to say I agree entirely with Karl Denninger's position regarding the persistent, growing threat posed to all our civil liberties by governments federal, state, and local. Further, I agree that the electronic frontier is only one place to fight for our liberties. However, I am unclear about what Karl is proposing, as I am more generally unclear about, as someone once said, what is to be done. The EFF has its own fish to fry; I don't think they can be expected to expand into a 90s ACLU, given their current limited resources, the stated focus of their founders, etc. The question thus remains: *how* can we begin to oppose the whole complex of drug war, hacker war,thoughtcrime war, etc. in some way that might prove effective? -- Tom Maddox "I couldn't get past page 10 of Ulysses . . . the book just didn't make sense." "Friendless" Farrell
david.kaye@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (david kaye) (02/15/91)
In re LA Law, I have always cautioned people to remember that broadcast is an *advertising* medium, not an entertainment medium. There is little concern about program content, realism, education, or any other kind of editing *unless* it relates directly with improving the numbers of people watching the program. TV people are selling audience to advertisers. Viewers are not the clients. Viewers are the product.
--
david kaye - via FidoNet node 1:125/777
UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!fidogate!111!david.kaye
INTERNET: david.kaye@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORGlouisg@vpnet.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto) (02/22/91)
If what you say is true, that TV is only a medium for advertisement, then what about the shows on PBS? Surely you can't say Monty Python serves as a promotionfor some company. Neither does Nova. They all have sponsors since someone has to foot the bill. The problem is, like you said, that they sacrifice quality of programs for quantity of viewers, which in turn means moer advertising. Louis (louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us)