TK0JUT2%NIU.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu (10/11/90)
In a recent article posted on another newsgroup (>18577@rpp386.cactus.org>, dated >9 Oct 90 04:09:20 GMT<), a person identifying as jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes >just as a note, this is the same len rose that sold stolen >computer equipment to a number of close personal friends of >mine. there has never been any doubt in their minds that >len was well aware of the stolen-ness of the equipment which >he was selling them. This is a very serious charge, and one that *HAS NOT* been alleged by *ANY* law-enforcement agent. If Mr. Haugh has evidence of wrong doing, perhaps he could pass it along. He should also pass along the names of his friends. Normally, in our democracy, it requires and indictment and subsequent judicial proceedings to determine guilt. Does Mr. Hough possess information that the rest of us, including the courts, do not? It seems that he is relying on second hand information which, if false, could possibly open him up to a major libel suit. Note that the poster did not suggest by innuendo, but made a categorical statement. Is Mr. Hough willing to stand by this claim and, if so, willing to present some of the evidence for this claim? >perhaps we could have mr. rose detail the circumstances >surrounding his arrest, including the reasons and evidence >which the government has. giving aid or comfort to mr. rose >would be akin to giving benedict arnold a congressional >medal of honor. The details surrounding *ALL* of Len Rose's legal problems have been addressed in excruciating detail in Telecom Digest, Computer underground Digest, and numerous newspaper articles. I have read most of these, and have also read the various legal documents (indictments, search warrants, etc), and *NONE* of them make any such allegations. Some of these documents have been reprinted and are available from a variety of sources. If Mr. Hough has been even marginally aware of netnews, he would be informed of the "reasons and evidence which the government has." The five counts against Len resemble the fabricated and exaggerated claims of federal prosecutors in the Craig Neidorf trial, which the prosecution dropped even prior to presenting its case. It appears that Mr. Hough admits to having little knowledge of the case, but is yet willing to make outrageous claims as if he possessed knowledge others don't. If he does possess such knowledge, perhaps he should share it with the rest of us. >it is also worth noting that a number of people involved >in operation sun devil have had some direct or indirect >dealings with mr. rose. giving him source code would be >like giving the government an excuse to search and sieze >your computer. What on earth does this mean? Many of those who have been victimized by Operation Sun Devil were not indicted, were not under suspicion, and do not appear to be in any legal difficulty. Guilt by association is bad enough, but guilt by association when associates are guilty of no crime is even worse. Is Mr. Hough trying to subvert such basic protections as trial by jury, freedom of association, and the right to confront accusers? And, what does "indirect" dealings mean? Many of us have had "direct and indirect" association with those on the receiving end of Operation Sun Devil. Does this make us guilty of something? And, please bear in mind that if all persons who have possessed copyright source code were prosecuted, it would make the war on drugs seem like a minor operation. *LEN IS NOT ACCUSED OF STEALING ANYTHING* in the federal indictments, and any hint to the contrary is flat-out wrong! Neither is he, nor has he been, accused of selling stolen equipment. To categorically claim that he has opens one to a potential slander suit. The author posted his voice phone in the signature. If anybody is able to obtain further information from him, perhaps they could post it. Given the potentially slanderous nature of the post, it is possible that a prankster posted the message. If it were my signature under such a note, I would immediately retain an attorney. If it were a prank, I would pursue a legal action against the prankster for tarnishing my name with such a post. If the post is not a prank, I would prepare to defend myself against a libel action. The signature information read: >John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh >Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org If you are able to obtain information, please send it to: Jim Thomas TK0JUT2@NIU.bitnet