From: "MajickMutex" Subject: Re: GIVE MITNICK A COMPUTER! Date: 1998/03/13 Message-ID: <6ec8h8$bdu@camel19.mindspring.com> X-Deja-AN: 333799091 References: <6dife2$sov$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6ebj53$rsu$1@osh1.datasync.com> X-Server-Date: 13 Mar 1998 21:30:16 GMT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Newsgroups: alt.2600,alt.hacking,alt.hacker,alt.fan.kevin-mitnick Frosty wrote in message <6ebj53$rsu$1@osh1.datasync.com>... >Kermee (net.softhome@kermee.piss.off.spam) wrote: >: >: he got caught and now he can read HARD COPYS of the law books instead of >: the CD rom, big loss. we dont care > > > Actually, let's set the record straight again. Mitnick is currently > innocent. He has not been tried, nor convicted of -ANY- crimes that > he is currently incarcerated for. Yes, lets set the record straight again, because you're severely warping it. First of all, I want to state I have nothing against Kevin Mitnick and wish him the best of luck, a lot of the points I will make further on will appear that I am against Kevin, which I am not. Your interpretation of how law works exists only in Hollywood. You're only partially right, he hasn't been tried or convicted of any crimes that he is currently being held for. That is the only fact that you are correct about, but unfortunately, it is legal for that to happen to him > This would be tantamount to the > police picking you up on the streets for questioning, and then holding > you for 3-years while they make a case to bring to court. I shall dub you El Wrongo, because you are wrong. He has not been held for 3 years while awaiting the government to make its case. He was charged in February 1995 on cell phone fraud and probation violation, his bail was denied because he was a flight risk, and he awaited his first trial for 18 months. He was found guilty in June 1996, sentenced to 22 months and time served, which left 13 months for him. In October 1997 his sentence was up but he remained incarcerated because of his second upcoming trial by the Feds, and bail was denied once again because he was still a serious flight risk. Your analogy is critically flawed, because there are 2 trials. He has awaited his second Federal trial for 15 months: 10 months while serving his first sentence, and 5 months after his sentence ended, not 3 years, and waited his first trial for 18 months. Do your homework. What bothers me the most is that the jury will most likely not be able to follow the technical aspects and will probably be prejudiced towards hacking due to how the media portrays hackers, and the prosecutors will use both to their advantage. Mitnick will be locked away forever simply because ordinary people actually won't understand the details of his case, even though what he did was pretty harmless. Now this is what's wrong with the rest of your observations: >Ironically, those being questioned for rape (JonBenet Ramsey), sexual >harrassment (Bill Clinton), wiretapping fraud (Linda Tripp), and other crimes >have never suffered even half of the outrageous incarceration without >conviction that Kevin has. So, as Kevin is still untried, why is he barred >from using a computer ?? Looks like a violation of civil rights. Ironically, you think you know what you're talking about, when you actually haven't got a clue. Kevin's length of incarceration is barely worthy the description of "outrageous". His time awaited is typical in the federal judicial system. Had he been brought up on state charges, he would spend many more years awaiting trial. The North Carolina day care molestation case, about 6 years ago, resulted in the 2 defendants sitting in jail during the entire 8 year span of their case, until they were found not guilty. The only time an unreasonable delay is considered a violation of civil rights is the time between arrest and your first hearing, which is usually 48 hours in all jurisdictions, sometimes 72. This was established in McNabb vs. United States, 1948. After the first hearing, which is when you are charged, they can hold you as long as necessary to prepare for arraignment. Later, you have a prelimanary hearing, where they call witnesses and the judge determines if there is enough evidence for a trial. If there is, then a grand jury is called. The defendant is not allowed to be present at the grand jury hearing. The grand jury decides what the defendant should be charged with, and the charges agreed upon is called the indictment. Once an indictment has been issued, an arraignment is called. An arraignment is when the defendent is made aware of the charges in the indictment, and enters a plea. After that, all the sides present their evidence, witnesses, and experet testimony, Then the jury retires to determine guiilt or innocence. If your guilty, the judge decides your sentence. When people think of a trial, they only think of the arraignment. Most of the process is time-consuming and laborious, and involves several hearings before the defendant actually enters a plea. Thats why it took 18 months for Kevin's first trial. Most of the time he has been serving while waiting arraignment for his April trial was served after his first sentencing. Here's whats wrong with the rest of your comparisons: The Ramsey case hasn't resulted in anyone going to jail because there isn't enough evidence that could be used to successfully prosecute anyone yet, therefore it is stupid to charge anyone. This can't be compared to the Mitnick case because the government had enough evidence to charge him. Tripp didn't violate any laws, it isn't illegal to record a conversation without the other party's consent in Virginia, therefore she can't be charged with a crime. This can't be compared to the Mitnick case because unlike Tripp, Mitnick could have violated laws and the evidence the FBI has is probably enough to affirm this, while it is legally impossible for Tripp to have violated laws because there was no law for her to violate. The Clinton comparison had me laughing until I hurt. Your insinuation that it's unfair to not throw Clinton in jail, yet let Mitnick sit in prison, is ludicrous. Its not even the same type of law! Clinton is involved in a civil case, the same stuff of divorce proceedings, custody hearings, breach of contract, etc. He can't go to prison for asking a chick with a bad perm to touch his dick because civil law doesn't do that. Punishment can't be sought in civil cases, only compensation in the form of monetary or property remuneration. Mitnick has been charged with a criminal offense, and can be held in prison until the government is ready to present its case, and it's 100% legal. Restricting Kevin's access to a computer isn't a violation of his civil rights. All prisoners are restricted or denied access to computers. Given his background, its no wonder why he would be denied access, screaming out "civil rights violation" is ridiculous. That's like letting arsonists carry matchbooks and pedophiles to keep small children in their cells. Guess what? In prison your rights are allowed to be curtailed, thats the whole fucking point. End of Story. There's your straight record.