mitnick-digest Tuesday, December 15 1998 Volume 01 : Number 221 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:49:45 +1000 From: Reeza! Subject: Re: [mitnick] Check this out, Home Boys... About that sig,,, Reeza! At 08:13 PM 12/14/98 -0600, Xer0 KelviN wrote: >At 07:20 AM 12/15/98 +1000, you wrote: >>Uhm, it it Mitnick, not "Metnick". Typo??? >> >>Reeza! > >Your damn corrections are getting to be a pain in the ass! Come on! If you >have something to say, then say it otherwise keep your mouth shut unless it >contributes to the cause! The one thing that we do not need is someone who >is so damned nit-picky that all they do is end up being everybodies >secretary. I'm sure people are at least trying to spell things half-way >readable. And how do you know English isn't thier coup-of-tea! Personally >I am more interested in the cause than the way the cause is written. Yes I >agree that it needs to be understandable but most of the people that >support Kevin are better at Computers or Hacking than they are at thier >English skills. So lets try and stay focused on given the Judge, Jury, and >Court System some damned good reasons on why Kevin shouldn't be in there >instead of correcting everones spelling and grammar errors. > >Thanx XK > >FFFFF RRRR EEEEE EEEEE >F R R E E >FFF RRRR EEE EEE >F R R E E >F R R EEEEE EEEEE > >K K EEEE V V I N N >K K E V V I NN N >KK EE V V I N N N >K K E V V I N NN >K K EEEE V I N N > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:51:26 +1000 From: Reeza! Subject: Re: [mitnick] Check this out, Home Boys... Yup. I hate it when I do that,,, Reeza! At 06:52 PM 12/14/98 -0800, Support Services wrote: > >What does "Umn, it it Mitnick" mean??? Typo??? > > > >On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 07:20:59 +1000, Reeza! wrote: >> >> Uhm, it it Mitnick, not "Metnick". Typo??? >> >> Reeza! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 19:59:34 -0800 (PST) From: Support Services Subject: Re: Odp: [mitnick] letter to the post What does any of this have to do with Mitnick, you idiot? While we're at it, if you're going to try and quote what I said, then do it -- cut and paste my exact words. Then at least you'll be less likely to make stupid requests due to your comprehension and attention deficit disorder problem. Not to mention your manic depressive tendencies, coupled with a long family history of bipolar disorder. On Mon, 14 Dec 1998 22:00:23 EST, Phoenxknt wrote: > > << Yea -- I could tell from your handle, man. > >> > Alright, thats it. Support, you cause more trouble than I have, and > thats a very hard thing to do. You post NOTHING relevent, NOTHING! > You flame us, every last one. rOTTEN never flamed for no reason, I > didn't do it NEARLY as much as you, and if you can tell age by handle > how old is a person I know called Alderan, or how about Magnus? Maybe > you could tell me how old Fairlight is? I Thought so. Back down. > Now. -Absolute Matter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 20:07:01 -0800 (PST) From: Support Services Subject: Re: [mitnick] Hacking the government computers...2 How is this immature comment relevant to Kevin Mitnick? How does it help Kevin in any way? Do you really think that, under the thinly veiled excuse of asking people to kill irrelevant threads, you have the right to post an irrelevant thread yourself? Me thinketh not! - --- Fortunato pleads one last time for his life, imploring Montressor with the impassioned cry, "for the love of God," but Montressor, quietly answers, "yes, for the love of God... Free Kevin Mitnick!" Fortunato makes no further reply, and Montressor, heartily frightened, speedily completes his work. Piling bones upon the masonry to conceal the newly finished work, Montressor departs, and since then has allowed Fortunato "in pace requiescat." On Mon, 14 Dec 1998 21:53:46 EST, Phoenxknt wrote: > > And we would all be rather DEAD. in the words of Fortunato in > The Cask of Amontillado "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MONTRESUER!" > please kill the damn thread! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 23:28:15 -0500 From: Emmanuel Goldstein Subject: Re: [mitnick] washington post update - re emmanuel On Mon, Dec 14, 1998 at 04:36:36PM -0800, Support Services wrote: > > Metnik's attorney (Randolph) interviewed and even got a declaration > >from Ronald Mark Austin. From the debriefing of Austin, it appears > Randolph's initial concerns were without foundation. It turns out > Ronald M. Austin never worked for the defense -- he worked in the > same *building* as one of the defense attorneys, that's all. But > he was never an employee of the defense. according to kevin, austin did work for richard sherman for at least a few days. it was during this period that he met the person from the other company who he eventually wound up working for more regularly. kevin says that austin picked up the phone a couple of times when he called from prison and even that he typed one of kevin's documents. emmanuel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 22:32:32 -0600 From: Death2040 Subject: Re: Odp: [mitnick] letter to the post >What does any of this have to do with Mitnick, you idiot? >While we're at it, if you're going to try and quote what I >said, then do it -- cut and paste my exact words. Then at >least you'll be less likely to make stupid requests due to >your comprehension and attention deficit disorder problem. >Not to mention your manic depressive tendencies, coupled >with a long family history of bipolar disorder. um....bipolar and manic are the same are they not? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 22:56:28 -0800 (PST) From: rOTTEN Subject: Re: [mitnick] Check this out, Home Boys... On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Joe Shambro wrote: > How about this, > > Let's just talk in normal english and not try to imitate some hoodlum, > rastifari gang members you saw on television? > > -Joe There aren't many rastafarian gangs. Hard to shoot people when you're high and praising Ja. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 23:01:17 -0800 (PST) From: rOTTEN Subject: [mitnick] Re: [OFFTOPIC] Hacking the government computers...2 On Mon, 14 Dec 1998 Phoenxknt@aol.com wrote: > And we would all be rather DEAD. in the words of Fortunato in The Cask of > Amontillado "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MONTRESUER!" please kill the damn thread And in the words of the Marquis de Sade... "Eat my sweet fuck of christ!!" <..rOTTEN..> nobody move, nobody get hurt error187(1) critical failure - - - - - - To do: 1) Update my "To do" list. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 23:04:36 -0800 (PST) From: rOTTEN Subject: Re: [mitnick] Support Services > If Lewis DePayne was still on the mailing list, you better believe he'd > put that Support Services asshole in his place. Lew's the kinda guy that > just wouldn't stand for that kind of crap. End of story. Man, I agree totally. <..rOTTEN..> nobody move, nobody get hurt error187(1) critical failure - - - - - - To do: 1) Update my "To do" list. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 03:37:21 -0500 From: john barleycorn Subject: Re: [mitnick] the point to all this (off topic, but necessary) jackdarippa wrote: > If someone says something lame, let 'em say it, there's > no reason to make an insult, that will just start more stupid off > topic subjects which go on for a number of days until someone mentions > they're off topic. Sorry, I just gotta put my two cents in here: Better yet just use private e-mail! That way you can flame to your hearts content and we dont have to read it. One possible solution might be to reconfigure majordomo to use the senders address as the reply to address instead of the list address, making it just a little harder for one to fly off the handle with an off topic post befor fully thinking about it first. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 01:21:53 -0800 (PST) From: Lew Payne Subject: [mitnick] Support Services I just rejoined this mailing list, after receiving some forwarded email. I'm too busy preparing for trial to read every message or to stay on the list for long. What I do want to do while on here is find out what this Support person's problem is. You have a problem with the list, or with the people on the list? Take it offline, or I'll take you offline. Your choice. Choose now. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 04:28:21 -0500 From: Emmanuel Goldstein Subject: [mitnick] from agent steal this actually came in on sunday but i lost it in a huge pile of incoming mail. it's from petersen. sorry for the delay. emmanuel - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Shortly after returning from a short visit abroad I was apprehended. Yes, friends and foes, I am back once again at the Metropolitan Detention Center in L.A. Apparently my girlfriend's roommates had found out about my status, and in turn mentioned this to friends of theirs. They, (the friend's of my girlfriend's roommates) notified the marshalls and I was arrested w/o incident at my girlfriend's apartment where I was residing. No evidence of crime or weapons were found at the scene. My court date is in approximately 6 weeks and I expect my sentence to fall within the guidelines 5 to 11 months. In a nutshell, I am guilty of only a technical violation. I was unable to find employment suitable to my probation officer's taste. Thus, I had not been able to pay off my $40,000 restitution, nor even make a dent in it. As an ex-felon with a back injury and a partially missing leg, it has been very difficult re-establishing myself. Realizing that I need to be self-employed, I invested what little monies I had in my computer center. However, all normal businesses take time to prosper and show a profit. Unfortunately, I was not given a reasonable amount of time to make this work and the business completely fell apart due to a one month incarceration I had thrust upon me some months ago for precisely the same logic, a term I use liberally here. Upon feeling pressured by my probation officer to make immediate money after my re-release, I shifted my efforts to the adult website business. I believe that my probation officer found this venture to be personally distasteful and henceforth sought any means to violate me motivated by moral factors, as opposed to legal ones. The real irony is that this business, is now in a profit generating mode and it is only now that they elect to re-incarcerate me. - ----- End forwarded message ----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 02:21:10 -0800 (PST) From: rOTTEN Subject: Re: [mitnick] Support Services On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Lew Payne wrote: > I just rejoined this mailing list, after receiving some forwarded > email. I'm too busy preparing for trial to read every message or > to stay on the list for long. > > What I do want to do while on here is find out what this Support > person's problem is. You have a problem with the list, or with > the people on the list? Take it offline, or I'll take you offline. > > Your choice. Choose now. Look, "Lewiz", I don't know who the fuck you think you are, but why don't you just shut the fuck up, and drop the "holier than thou" attitude, or I'll put some more fancy words in quotation marks, and THEN you'll be sorry. "I ain't fucking around!" I'm crazy like that, loc. And you're not fooling anyone, because the REAL Lew has a last name that is comprised of a "De" before the "Payne". Not just "Lew Payne". HA! I got ya, didn't I? Imposter. ~Phiber Optik. - ---------------------------------- "Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe. All mimsy were the borogoves and the momeraths outgabe." ################################## Snicker-snack I do attack TCP/IP sniffin' the pack ################################## Free Kevin http://www.kevinmitnick.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 21:43:16 +1000 From: Reeza! Subject: Re: [mitnick] the point to all this (off topic, but necessary) At 03:37 AM 12/15/98 -0500, john barleycorn wrote: >jackdarippa wrote: > > > >> If someone says something lame, let 'em say it, there's >> no reason to make an insult, that will just start more stupid off >> topic subjects which go on for a number of days until someone mentions >> they're off topic. > >Sorry, I just gotta put my two cents in here: Better yet just use >private e-mail! That way you can flame to your hearts content and we >dont have to read it. > >One possible solution might be to reconfigure majordomo to use the >senders address as the reply to address instead of the list address, >making it just a little harder for one to fly off the handle with an off >topic post befor fully thinking about it first. > Majordomo _NEEDS_ to be reconfigured so that when replying, it puts the address of the person who sent the post being replied to. When replying to "all", it sends to mitnick@2600.com TWICE- to send an offlist reply, it is necessary to manually remove mitnick@2600.com and insert the list members addy. Another reason so much bs gets posted to the list, it is easier than the reply to the individual. Who admins this list anyway??? Reeza! ============================================================================ DH Key available upon request. The affairs of Men rarely rely on the dictates of logic, or even common sense. "Corruptissima republicae, plurimae leges." -- Tacitus ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 04:56:48 PST From: "Kamikaze Kaze" Subject: [mitnick] to the man of Phenix...only poiSiNous, i AM a swedish with bad english. If you think otherwise it doesen`t really bother me. Kamikazen. "Leave me alone...I'm feeling rOTTEN" ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:12:15 EST From: SkyFireZ@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] Check this out, Home Boys... Someone earlier mentioned the presence of FBI on the list... well if they are posting, and i had my pick.... I choose: support@tspeed.net. Don't get me wrong, im not making accusations, I'm really just joking. But the "Home Boys" thing.... I just had to say something... Acid In a message dated 12/13/98 7:08:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, support@tspeed.net writes: > Hey dewds, like I just heard this comment from a homeboy that > knows his shit, man. Like, he's been following this Justine > Peterson case down to the ground, dig. So what he told me was > that what the man said was right! Like, this Peterson says > that he won't be doing more time for skipping on his probation, > and that all they can do to him is make him server the rest of > NT his time, and then he walks free -- no probation, no shit! > > Like, my homeboy says there's a legal rule that started one > month after Petershon did his shit, man -- and so it ain't got > no relevance to Peterson, because it don't apply retroactively. > > For those of you homeys that don't know what that technical law > talk means, it means the rule came out after Petersen got the > big gabel banged on him, and so that law ain't no applies to him. > Dig? > > So, this shithead's going to do the rest of his time, a few > more months, then walk away without extended probation. Like, > meanwhile MetniK didn't even have a trial, dewd, and this guy > who turned him in just gets to walk free again. > > I thought at least Metnik was entitled to some Habeus Crispus > or something, but my homeboy tells me that Metnik told them he > waved at the Habeus Crispus so they wouldn't haul his ass all > around town or something. So as long as he waves, they keep > him in one place. Check it out -- it seems that's what the > home-boy wants... to keep the trial in Los Angeles instead of > having a jury of his peers fly all around town making a mess > of air traffic control or something. > > I wish I could explain it better, but like I'm not much for > the law tehcnical stuff... and the homeboy that explained it > to me knows a lot about this stuff, man. > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:19:16 EST From: SkyFireZ@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] lamers on the loose Understood. Although I'm still comfortable with the comma in that sentence. But I think I can get over it. In a message dated 12/13/98 8:14:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, caliban@darklock.com writes: > Because it was inflammatory and insulting. You came across as saying "if > you can't write effectively, don't support Kevin, because he doesn't need > your kind of support" -- which isn't at all what you probably *meant*, but > it still looks an awful lot like a "LOCALS ONLY" sign (to choose the least > offensive of several possibilities). ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:26:27 EST From: SkyFireZ@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] Youthful maturity (was letter to the post) In a message dated 12/14/98 12:23:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, support@tspeed.net writes: > Dewd -- like this guy Pelota just said he's fucking forty. > I can't understand the shit he's spoutin' either, homey... So you're telling me that you're older than 16? >if a fourteen year old started talking >constitutional shit with me, I'd ask him how many times he's >been put through the fuckin' system, man. So you have to be a criminal to understand the constitution/bill of rights etc.? Interesting..... AcidRayne ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:30:18 EST From: SkyFireZ@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] Hacking the government computers...2 In a message dated 12/14/98 7:51:35 AM Pacific Standard Time, johan.hedberg@unt.se writes: > You don't only make yourself look like a fool, > all the other listmembers will think that swedes are nothing but stupid, > blond, blue-eyed bimbos Don't worry, I dont think of her as a Swede.... I think of her as an idiot. Acid ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:50:17 -0600 From: "poiSiN" Subject: Re: [mitnick] to the man of Phenix...only What the HELL are you talking about now... e-mail me directly, simpleton, or do not address me at all. ~poiSiNous "Leave me alone...I'm feeling rOTTEN" poiSiNous aka Cattitude ICQ : 2359153 http://members.xoom.com/poiSiNous/Lair.html - -----Original Message----- From: Kamikaze Kaze To: mitnick@2600.com Date: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 7:21 AM Subject: [mitnick] to the man of Phenix...only >poiSiNous, i AM a swedish with bad english. >If you think otherwise it doesen`t really bother me. >Kamikazen. >"Leave me alone...I'm feeling rOTTEN" > > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:17:41 EST From: SkyFireZ@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] washington post update - re emmanuel In a message dated 12/14/98 5:00:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, support@tspeed.net writes: > Metnik's mitnick... look at the subject line... please. Acid ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:24:07 EST From: SkyFireZ@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] the point to all this (off topic, but necessary) In a message dated 12/14/98 6:35:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, jackr1pp@unixfreak.com writes: > Lately i've noticed (as many have and have also mentioned) the flame > wars constantly beginning on this mailing list. Truthfully, I've noticed the lack of flaming. Perhaps it's just my observation. Acid ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:26:21 EST From: SkyFireZ@aol.com Subject: Re: Odp: [mitnick] letter to the post In a message dated 12/14/98 7:14:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, Phoenxknt@aol.com writes: > Back down. Now. Support is owned..... haha.. AcidRayne ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:49:36 -0800 From: "Caliban Tiresias Darklock" Subject: Re: [mitnick] Youthful maturity (was letter to the post) - -----Original Message----- From: SkyFireZ@aol.com To: mitnick@2600.com Date: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [mitnick] Youthful maturity (was letter to the post) >In a message dated 12/14/98 12:23:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, >support@tspeed.net writes: > >>if a fourteen year old started talking >>constitutional shit with me, I'd ask him how many times he's >>been put through the fuckin' system, man. > >So you have to be a criminal to understand the constitution/bill of rights >etc.? Interesting..... Here's some more empty rhetoric with no practical use whatsoever. If you consider a particular law unjust, it normally means you're on the wrong side of it according to current statute. Understanding the bill of rights is just fine, standing up for your rights is just fine, but when you start talking about something being a violation of rights -- like say the illegality of marijuana for recreational use -- then people seem to think that means you're out exercising that right in violation of the law. How many people do you know who think marijuana should be legal, but don't smoke it? Certainly, we're out there, but we're also in the minority. (Many pot-smokers think we're wimps, and should protest the illegality of marijuana by going out and smoking it. How getting blasted makes any kind of political statement eludes me, but I guess you have to be a smoker to understand that.) Most of this is selfishness. Most people just plain don't care about laws that aren't in their back yard. If you don't use computers, a law banning the use of computers isn't doing anything to you. If you don't own guns, a law banning the ownership of guns isn't doing anything to you. But both of these laws, which of course are so theoretical as to be meaningless, should bother you -- because if the government can arbitrarily ban the use of computers, then they could arbitrarily ban the use of something else. There's little concern in most people's heads for setting precedents, partially because they don't understand how this can be dangerous, partially because they honestly don't want to believe that a law which doesn't affect them now might affect them later. Laws are there to punish the guilty, or at least that's how we perceive them; laws rarely exist to protect the innocent in practice. Those laws which *are* created to protect the innocent often lend themselves far too readily to abuses. So when you stand up and say that Kevin is being treated unfairly, people don't hear you saying that no one should be kept in jail for four years without a trial; they hear you saying that you are like Kevin. We all mean that to some degree; it could, after all, be any of us in there. If the government can jail Kevin for four years and not try him in a court of law, then can't it do the same to just about anyone else? But what people get when you say "I am like Kevin" is something else entirely. When you say "X is like Y", people drop that "like" for some reason and get "X is Y" -- and then mathematics kicks in, and the idea of equality. Part of this is because people always say you can't compare apples and oranges, even though they're both round, edible fruits that grow on trees. Apples and oranges are alike, but they are not the same. If they are not the same, they cannot be compared. Being "like" something is not a basis for comparison. So when you invite a comparison between yourself and Kevin, people will not see two people who are American citizens with the same theoretical level of guilt (namely, none: "presumed innocent" etc.) at all. Now that you've said you're like Kevin, people look at Kevin and see (apologies for the unflattering depiction and unfair accusations here) an antisocial geek who steals credit card numbers, reads people's email, and was on the FBI's most wanted list. He's a criminal. He's stolen money (the credit card numbers -- whether he used them is irrelevant), he's violated privacy (the email), and he's dangerous (otherwise he wouldn't have been on that list). So obviously, *you* are a dangerous untrustworthy thief, because you think he's being unfairly treated. And besides, he's a geek, and nobody likes geeks. A lot of laws here in America are written out of good old fashioned FUD. People don't often look at the larger picture; you can chalk it up to whatever you like -- attention span, idiocy, ignorance, youth, apathy, whatever -- but the end result is that people are not considering the consequences of their actions. Whenever a significant number of people believe something is wrong, they immediately start thinking there should be a law against it. Same thing with when they think something is right, like recycling -- it's not enough to exert peer pressure or educate the community. They want to FORCE everyone into what they see as the "right" thing. A lot of laws just plain don't apply for more than a few years, and those that do are often left to rot with the philosophy of "if it works, don't fix it". Somewhere along the line (and it can be argued that we were like this all along, based on the puritanical roots of America) we got the idea that America is really about making everyone do the right thing. The problem is that we keep redefining what the right thing is; whereas we started with the golden rule and the idea of "live and let live", we appear to have gotten away from that. (Apologies to international readers; while I've spent time in other countries, I don't know their laws or cultural thought processes well enough to comment meaningfully on them.) We have appointed ourselves the grand high powermongers Someone whose name I do not recall once said that saying "my country, right or wrong" was like saying "my wife, drunk or sober" -- which is to say, nonsensical and meaningless. If your country is wrong, then it is wrong. It doesn't matter whether it's stepping on YOUR toes at the moment. The fact that it's stepping on *anyone's* toes without reasonable justification should be enough. Grammatical note: Yes, I know punctuation technically "belongs" inside the quotes, but I'm deliberately breaking that rule because I think it's wrong. And I also begin sentences with conjunctions, which is generally speaking Bad. Call me arrogant. ;) | Caliban Tiresias Darklock caliban@darklock.com | Darklock Communications http://www.darklock.com/ | U L T I M A T E U N I V E R S E I S N O T D E A D | 774577496C6C6E457645727355626D4974H -=CABAL::3146=- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:48:01 -0800 From: "Caliban Tiresias Darklock" Subject: Re: [mitnick] Youthful maturity (was letter to the post) - -----Original Message----- From: Caliban Tiresias Darklock To: mitnick@2600.com Date: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 10:26 AM Subject: Re: [mitnick] Youthful maturity (was letter to the post) Oops. Forgot to complete this sentence somehow. >We have appointed ourselves >the grand high powermongers ...of worldwide cultural morality. | Caliban Tiresias Darklock caliban@darklock.com | Darklock Communications http://www.darklock.com/ | U L T I M A T E U N I V E R S E I S N O T D E A D | 774577496C6C6E457645727355626D4974H -=CABAL::3146=- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:14:42 EST From: Bobwil623@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] washington post update - re emmanuel #2 hmmm.... someone known for their unrealistic insults posted to the mitnick mailing list writes... (all quotes are cut-and-pasted; any misteaks are in the original): > ...highly inflamatory and inaccurate... and > Randolph... interviewed and even got a declaration > from Ronald Mark Austin. From the debriefing of > Austin, it appears Randolph's initial concerns > were without foundation. It turns out Ronald M. > Austin never worked for the defense -- he worked > in the same *building* as one of the defense > attorneys, that's all. But he was never an > employee of the defense... so you claim. according to at least one of the 302s signed by that "ronald mark austin", the 302 includes mr. austin telling the fbi of his concerns that he was working with former mitnick defense attorney sherman. the fbi claim to have "resolved" their violations of attorney-client privilege by having both mr. austin and the fbi "agree" not to discuss matters related to mitnick's defense. sheer nonsense. note that witness austin (the signatory of the 302s referenced herein, and which were also referenced in the fine defense motion by mr. randolph) actually typed memos written by mr. sherman that discussed mr. sherman's offer of pro bono representation of mr. mitnick -- this according to one or more of the 302s signed by mr. austin. dates of those 302s available upon request. > It turns out Ronald M. Austin never worked for > the defense -- he worked in the same *building* > as one of the defense attorneys, that's all... hmm... actually, mr. austin was hired by a client of mr. sherman -- by the name of "whitworth energy," if memory serves. the owner/chief honcho of whitworth was in sherman's office *once* while austin was there, and offered austin a job that same day. that's unusual in and of itself. whitworth energy also had an office for mr. sherman, inasmuch as mr. sherman represented whitworth in a legal matter unrelated to the mitnick case. saying that austin "merely" worked in the same "*building*" is disingenuous at best, and ignores the fact that mr. austin had full access to mr. sherman's office -- and unsecured files -- at various times while working for whitworth energy. even if the clerical work austin performed for mr. sherman was short-term, unpaid (which it may have been; that fact is unclear), intermittent, or temporary, the fact remains: he was an fbi informant with access to mitnick's former defense attorney's office, and performed clerical support work for that attorney. there's a principle at work here, and that is that *all* employees of a law firm are presumed to have "full and complete knowledge" of all matters handled by anyone in the firm; thus the reason an attorney will decline representation in a case for conflict when any member of the firm knows (or has had dealings with) the principals in the issue under discussion (any attorneys on the list, please correct as required). more details available upon request. > I guess everyone's entitle to spread their shit > around... not in my opinion they're not. if you've got the declaration, post a scan of it to the net, and then let witness austin explain the discrepancy between the 302 (sworn to under penalty of perjury) that claims he (austin) was working in sherman's office and the so-far mythical "declaration" that is alleged to claim he (austin) wasn't (working for sherman). hey, i'm willing to listen with a mind open to change -- but insulting others isn't the way to get me to do so. in re this mythical "declaration": does the km site have it? does km himself have it? does randolph have it? if the answer to any of these is no, let's make sure they *all* have it (the declaration), and then let's see austin explain why he didn't perjure himself in the 302 he signed. and if mr. randolph has the declaration and km does not have the declaration, perhaps that's worthy of explanation as well. lastly, let's lighten up on the insults -- they merely display your insecurities for all to see. a little compassion for others in a different position than yourself goes a long way.... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:30:28 -0800 (PST) From: Support Services Subject: Re: [mitnick] Youthful maturity (was letter to the post) On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:26:27 EST, SkyFireZ wrote: > > > Dewd -- like this guy Pelota just said he's fucking forty. > > I can't understand the shit he's spoutin' either, homey... > > So you're telling me that you're older than 16? Hey challenged homeboy -- quote me the line where I specifically say what you think I said. After you can't find it, have teacher give you some assignments dealing with assumptions vs facts. > >if a fourteen year old started talking constitutional shit with > >me, I'd ask him how many times he's been put through the fuckin' > > system, man. > > So you have to be a criminal to understand the constitution/bill > of rights etc.? Interesting..... AcidRayne Hey challenged homeboy -- quote me the line where I specifically say what you think I said. After you can't find it, have teacher give you some assignments dealing with assumptions vs facts. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:33:06 -0800 (PST) From: Support Services Subject: Re: [mitnick] Check this out, Home Boys... On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:12:15 EST, SkyFireZ wrote: > > Someone earlier mentioned the presence of FBI on the list... well if > they are posting, and i had my pick.... I choose: support@tspeed.net. > Don't get me wrong, im not making accusations, I'm really just joking. > But the "Home Boys" thing.... I just had to say something... I agree... I mean, check this out -- the way he eggs us on, it's like the typical entrapment thing the government is famous for. It's like he's trying to get us to do our thing, so he can come kicking down our door, yelling "Did you use SAS, did you use SAS?" at us. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:35:08 -0800 (PST) From: Support Services Subject: Re: [mitnick] to the man of Phenix...only On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 04:56:48 PST, Kamikaze Kaze wrote: > > "Leave me alone...I'm feeling rOTTEN" That's about the same as feeling Urkle, except for the fact that Urkle creams in his jeans any time a man or woman feels him. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:37:32 -0800 (PST) From: Support Services Subject: Re: [mitnick] Support Services Hey, no problem, man. I was just having a little fun. It's cool, dewd, it's cool. > I just rejoined this mailing list, after receiving some forwarded > email. I'm too busy preparing for trial to read every message or > to stay on the list for long. > > What I do want to do while on here is find out what this Support > person's problem is. You have a problem with the list, or with > the people on the list? Take it offline, or I'll take you offline. > > Your choice. Choose now. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:33:51 -0800 (PST) From: rOTTEN Subject: Re: [mitnick] washington post update - re emmanuel On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 SkyFireZ@aol.com wrote: > mitnick... look at the subject line... please. > > Acid Acid, Shut the fuck up. Please. I beg of you. I just had to read through 7 sequential and USELESS posts by you, and not one of them was funny. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:36:44 -0800 (PST) From: rOTTEN Subject: Re: [mitnick] Youthful maturity (was letter to the post) On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote: > Oops. Forgot to complete this sentence somehow. > > > >We have appointed ourselves > >the grand high powermongers > > ...of worldwide cultural morality. I wouldn't be too concerned...I don't think anyone was reading that post. <..rOTTEN..> nobody move, nobody get hurt error187(1) critical failure - - - - - - To do: 1) Update my "To do" list. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:21:06 -0800 From: "Caliban Tiresias Darklock" Subject: Re: [mitnick] Youthful maturity (was letter to the post) - -----Original Message----- From: rOTTEN To: mitnick@2600.com Date: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [mitnick] Youthful maturity (was letter to the post) >I wouldn't be too concerned I'm not. Most ignorance is willful. | Caliban Tiresias Darklock caliban@darklock.com | Darklock Communications http://www.darklock.com/ | U L T I M A T E U N I V E R S E I S N O T D E A D | 774577496C6C6E457645727355626D4974H -=CABAL::3146=- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 16:45:07 -0400 From: che guevara Subject: Re: [mitnick] Check this out, Home Boys... it's weird, though...before Support Services didn't write in this manner...maybe his email was taken over by the feds SkyFireZ@aol.com wrote: > > Someone earlier mentioned the presence of FBI on the list... well if they are > posting, and i had my pick.... I choose: support@tspeed.net. Don't get me > wrong, im not making accusations, I'm really just joking. But the "Home Boys" > thing.... I just had to say something... > > Acid > > In a message dated 12/13/98 7:08:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, > support@tspeed.net writes: > > > Hey dewds, like I just heard this comment from a homeboy that > > knows his shit, man. Like, he's been following this Justine > > Peterson case down to the ground, dig. So what he told me was > > that what the man said was right! Like, this Peterson says > > that he won't be doing more time for skipping on his probation, > > and that all they can do to him is make him server the rest of > > NT his time, and then he walks free -- no probation, no shit! > > > > Like, my homeboy says there's a legal rule that started one > > month after Petershon did his shit, man -- and so it ain't got > > no relevance to Peterson, because it don't apply retroactively. > > > > For those of you homeys that don't know what that technical law > > talk means, it means the rule came out after Petersen got the > > big gabel banged on him, and so that law ain't no applies to him. > > Dig? > > > > So, this shithead's going to do the rest of his time, a few > > more months, then walk away without extended probation. Like, > > meanwhile MetniK didn't even have a trial, dewd, and this guy > > who turned him in just gets to walk free again. > > > > I thought at least Metnik was entitled to some Habeus Crispus > > or something, but my homeboy tells me that Metnik told them he > > waved at the Habeus Crispus so they wouldn't haul his ass all > > around town or something. So as long as he waves, they keep > > him in one place. Check it out -- it seems that's what the > > home-boy wants... to keep the trial in Los Angeles instead of > > having a jury of his peers fly all around town making a mess > > of air traffic control or something. > > > > I wish I could explain it better, but like I'm not much for > > the law tehcnical stuff... and the homeboy that explained it > > to me knows a lot about this stuff, man. > > - -- :che guevara:: ::: ::: ::: "I never think of the future - it comes soon enough." -albert einstein ------------------------------ End of mitnick-digest V1 #221 *****************************