TK0JUT2@netsys.NETSYS.COM (10/11/90)
Let me see if I have John De Armond's letter straight: First, he bitches that
Len Rose "shoots his mouth off," then he says that Len Rose should talk??
First he calls Len naive, then he claims that Len should answer somebody's
charges who has presented only hearsay rumor? He wants Len Rose to "come
clean," but acknowledges that this may be dodgy without clearing it with an
attorney whose advice will be to "say nothing?" Mr. Armand seems on one hand
to demand that Len talk, but on the other takes a swipe at him for having
talked in ways that an attorney might find unwise. C'mon! One is still
innocent in our society until *proven* guilty, and trial by net-threat and
innuendo is reprehensible.
Perhaps John De Armond can answer a couple of questions for the rest of us:
1. Give us some examples of Len "shooting his mouth off?" His posts on
eff.talk hardly fit that description, so perhaps it occured
elsewhere and this info could be passed to us in private mail.
2. When did Len ask for anything on the nets that could be even remotely
inferred as asking for proprietary source code? Many of us have missed it,
so perhaps you could send us via private e-mail the cites to which you
refer.
Whether Len is innocent or guilty of the current charges will be determined by
the courts, not by smear campaigns. May I also remind you that Mr. Hough made
a rather ambiguous allusion to the fact that Len had "direct or indirect
dealings" with some of those searched in Operation Sun Devil, although it is
not clear why this is significant. However, if we do grant whatever point he
seems to trying to make (which is guilt by association), Mr. Hough seems to
acknowledge equally direct links: Some of his "close personal friends" have
purchased goods which they had no doubt to being stolen?? Uh, hate to be the
bearer of bad tidings, but in most states this is a felony if known prior to
purchase. If discovered after the fact they are, in most states, required to
report it, or they may be subject to a variety of felony or misdemeanor
charges, depending on the state (ranging from trafficking/receiving to
concealing a crime).
I am told that, for whatever reasons, Mr. Hough may retract his statement. If
so, let's put this unfortunate episode behind us and use it as a lesson, one
which Mr. Armand implicitly makes in his final paragraph: The issues some of
us are trying to raise are not about any one individual, so let's not engage
in personality assassination or smear campaigns. The issues are much broader
and involve the relationship between electronic media and Constitutional
protections. Those who support Len Rose have not, to my knowledge, made any
judgment regarding his innocence, but instead focus on such silly issues as
due process, the ambiguity of statutes that appear to allow extreme
enforcement latitude, and other fundamental principles around which there is
room for legitimate intellectual debate and disagreement. The continued
attempts of some to personalize these issues in the most mean-spirited manner
is counter-productive.
Jim Thomasjfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (10/12/90)
In article <199@netsys.NETSYS.COM> niu.bitnet!TK0JUT2@netsys.NETSYS.COM writes: >I am told that, for whatever reasons, Mr. Hough may retract his statement. If >so, let's put this unfortunate episode behind us and use it as a lesson, ... Please, let me speak for myself - you have a hard enough time just spelling my name correctly ;-) I hope that this article clears up some of the misunderstandings which may have arisen as a result of that original article. I have asked someone closer to this situation to provide me with some additional information regarding this case, and at that time will decide what form any retraction or correction will take. I have cancelled that article some time ago because there may have been inaccurate information contained in it, even though I believed that information to be accurate at the time. I would like to say that the information which I alluded to will be given to the Secret Service. This does not mean that the information is true or false or that Len Rose is guilty or innocent of anything. I am simply going to give the Secret Service the information on which I based my statement. It is up to them to investigate the information and to determine Len's guilt or innocence. I will not comment any further regarding the persons or events mentioned in that posting. Also, I would like to say that it is up to each and every individual to determine the extent to which they wish to trust Len. Since I have been injured by Operation Sun Devil I do not have a very objective opinion concerning Len Rose or any of the other defendants. This is unfortunate for them, but again, it merely reflects my personal understanding of the facts surrounding this case, not any absolute statement of truth. That I do not personally trust Len Rose is my perogative and should not be construed to be a statement of guilt or innocence or of Len's general trustworthyness. Finally, that people who were associated with Len Rose have been investigated by the Secret Service should not be taken to be a statement of their guilt or innocence, nor should it be taken to be a statement that associating with Len Rose will subject you to government investigation with any degree of certainty. It is a statement of the historical behavior of the Secret Service as evidenced by the number of friends and associates of Len who have been investigated. Note also that merely being investigated does not imply ones guilt or innocence. In closing, a large number of people have been injured during Operation Sun Devil, and a good number of those people are most certainly innocent and do not deserve to have their reputations or honor further tarnished. No doubt the government will continue its investigation with the same wrecklessness which we have seen to date, and no doubt there will be more innocent bystanders swept along as they go. I do believe that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but as I said at the beginning, my involvement with persons associated with Operation Sun Devil has made me less than objective and perhaps overly cautious. Prior to Operation Sun Devil I considered Len to be a reasonably friendly individual who was of some value to the community as a whole. I hope that justice is served in this case, whatever the outcome may be, and that the innocent people are able to regain their reputations and put the entire mess behind them. Thank you for your time and I hope you will understand that I may not be able to comment further on any issues which you may wish to raise. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (10/12/90)
One last thing - since several others have decided to bring my name into this group's discussion without my knowlege or consent, I am going to ask each and every one of you to refrain from involving me in your fight against Len. Since this discussion is between Len and myself, I would expect that Len and I will have to be the ones to resolve any misunderstanding. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) (10/16/90)
Thus far, I've avoided making any comments about things in any way related to the topics being bandied about. But I am so disturbed by John F. Haugh II's statement that I felt I must say something. Please note I'm not upset or surprised about the attacks / denials / counterclaims, etc. Not that they are trivial matters (exactly the opposite) but they seem to be almost commonplace in this era. No, what disturbs me is Mr. Haugh's statement: >I am simply going to give the Secret Service the information on which >I based my statement. It is up to them to investigate the information >and to determine Len's guilt or innocence. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ In case Mr. Haugh has not noticed, there is something called the Constitution, and its amendments. Because of it, Mr. Rose is innocent unless and until found guilty in a trial, by a JURY OF HIS PEERS. This is true no matter what he (or anyone of us) is ACCUSED of, be it: attempted illegal parking, xenophobia, inciting to riot, jaywalking, booing a TV wrestler, or you name it. ANYTHING! For Mr. Haugh to make such a statement as the above displays either such ignorance of the concepts of the United States as to horrify me, or such disrespect for them as to make me wonder how he feels about our system in general. Perhaps he would be happier elsewhere, in places where such bothersome concepts do not impede things. BTW, I visit, as part of my work, lots of places where the above protections do not exist. I like the country I live in a lot better, despite its flaws, after seeing them. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.....wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu & no one will talk to a host that's close............(305) 255-RTFM Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335 is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335