And don't forget another action-packed hour.
Jerry Brown comes your way tomorrow night at 7 o'clock here on radio station WBAI.
The machine efficiency is around the order of what we term unity and beyond.
And unity indicates an efficiency of 100%.
Hi, Paul Williams here for UFO Desk.
Join us Monday morning as we discuss machines that run with little or no heat loss.
Yes, they're called over-unity machines.
They fly in the face of thermodynamic laws.
Join me as I interview Dr. Robert Adams and Captain Kathy,
both of New Zealand and both pioneers in the field of new science and over-unity machines.
Monday morning, June 10th, at 1 a.m. at the top of Sidney Smith's Carrier Wave.
Of course, you are invited.
Okay, it's 8 o'clock. You're listening to WBAI in New York.
And while we may not be flying in the face of thermodynamic laws right now,
we do fly in the face of some federal ones.
It's time for Off the Hook.
The telephone keeps ringing, so I ripped it off the wall.
I cut myself while shaving, now I can't make a cough.
It couldn't get much worse, but if they could, they would.
Oh, they live on for the best, expect the worst.
I hope that's understood.
Oh, they live on!
Oh, they live on!
I don't know.
I don't know.
And a very good evening to everybody.
This is Off the Hook.
I'm Emmanuel Goldstein.
We'll be together for the next hour or so,
updating you on all kinds of things
involving computer hackers,
the Internet, the phone system,
and other things.
Hopefully you'll be hearing from Bernie S.
pretty soon.
He is still in federal prison in Pennsylvania,
locked up for having devices
that go beep
and other dangerous things like that.
Well, we've been following this story
for over a year.
It's incredible how long it's gone on,
and it looks like it'll be going on
for even longer.
So we'll give you all the details on that
as soon as we get them.
Now, you may have...
We haven't been on the air, actually,
in three weeks now,
so we'll be trying to take more phone calls
than usual.
So we might open up the phones a little early
so we can trade stories
and spread information around.
One of the things you may have heard about, though,
is a big story
a few days ago.
It was on every news program,
on every radio station,
lead story in many places,
how all these hackers
are getting into the Pentagon.
I mean, I don't know
how they're able to do it.
It's just the most incredible thing.
I was surprised.
I was thunderstruck.
I heard it on the radio,
and I said,
my God, this is incredible.
They're talking about
250,000 attacks
on the military computer system.
250,000.
And get this,
a 65% success rate.
65% of 250,000 attacks
on the Pentagon,
and they were successful.
I mean,
I don't know.
I have computer systems
with no passwords
that people have
more trouble getting into.
Okay?
It's...
I don't know
what kind of people
are attacking.
Well, actually,
at the time,
I didn't know
what kind of people
were attacking
these particular systems.
Some sort of uber-hacker
that no one has ever
encountered before
that is able to
somehow get through everything.
Well,
as is the case
with the media
virtually all the time,
the story wasn't
quite what it seemed.
They were talking.
You would never know this
by reading the story.
So, actually,
let's look at
the New York Times
because that's what we consider
the bastion of accuracy,
right?
Yeah.
Government investigators
warned today,
and this is today
being May 22nd,
that computer hackers
cruising the Internet
posed a serious
and growing threat
to national security
with the Pentagon
suffering as many
as 250,000 attacks
on its computers
last year.
The investigators
from the General
Accounting Office
offered scenarios,
which is something
that the average American
can panic over,
scenarios in which
terrorists
or enemy governments
might break into
Defense Department
computer networks
and shut them down,
cutting off communications
between military commanders
in the middle of a war.
Well,
I think our government
certainly is going to be
going around
breaking into other systems
because they have
their hands full
just trying to keep people
from getting into theirs
with a 65% success rate.
According to the investigators
who prepared a report
for two congressional committees,
there will become
an increasingly attractive way
for terrorists
or adversaries
to wage attacks.
The potential
for catastrophic damage
is great.
The Pentagon
did not dispute
the findings of the study,
although Defense Department
officials said
they knew of
no instance,
no instance,
in which hackers
had obtained
secret information
or gained access
to computer networks
that control the firing
of weapons.
I would like to believe
that there are no
computer systems
that control
the firing of weapons
on the Internet.
And I just would
sort of like to believe that.
But then again,
I have wild dreams
and I'm sure
that there's something
on there
controlling something nuclear.
Who knows?
While the Pentagon
is developing
encryption devices
that show promise
in defeating
computer hackers,
it's an odd way
of phrasing it,
isn't it?
It's because computer hackers
are the ones
developing encryption
that the government
is trying to defeat.
Regardless,
the accounting office,
which is the investigative
arm of Congress,
warned that none
of the proposed
technical solutions
was foolproof
and that the military's
current security program
was dated,
inconsistent,
and incomplete.
Susan Hansen,
the department spokesman,
said,
we are certainly
well aware
that people are
breaking in
or trying to
hack into our system.
And the explosion
in the use
of the Internet
and the increasing
power and sophistication
of small desktop
computers
has compounded
the Pentagon's
problems,
creating a worldwide
army of hackers.
Worldwide army?
You should see the
uniform.
Able to break into
all but the most
secure computer
networks.
The report cited,
I mean,
they have enough
trouble getting on IRC,
a lot of these people.
I don't know who
these people are
that are able to
methodically break in.
Maybe there's some
master race of hackers
someplace that nobody
knows about.
The report cited
Defense Department
estimates that the
number of unauthorized
efforts to enter
its computer systems,
attacks in the
parlance of cyberspace,
was doubling every year
and may have reached
250,000 in 1995.
Most of them made
through the Internet.
And Pentagon figures
suggested in about
65% of those efforts,
hackers were able to
gain entry to a
computer network.
Now, this is about
the time when you
should set the
story straight.
According to other
reports that we have
since gotten,
and actually reports
that we've been hearing
about beforehand,
too, and I hadn't
really linked the two
together until now,
the Air Force has
been engaged in some
kind of testing of
military computer
systems.
I think they've been
testing the Navy or the
Army or something like
that.
And during this
particular study, I
guess, where they were
testing the security,
they had a success rate
of about 65%.
They were hacking their
own computers.
And what they did was
they somehow translated
that into hackers.
They tried to figure out,
I guess, the number of
people attempting or
maybe connecting to
their website or who
knows what.
They got 250,000 out of
somewhere.
And they said, well,
since we were able to
do it 65% of the time,
there's no reason to
expect that these hackers
can't do it 65% of the
time.
And that's apparently how
they were able to get
that wild and crazy
number.
Because only 4% of the
test attacks were
detected, according to
this particular study.
Only 27% of those,
about 1 in every 150
were ever reported.
So, obviously, we're
talking about something
that they have some kind
of knowledge about for
them to come up with a
number since it's all
within the same military
industrial complex there.
Now, the thing we have to
worry about, though, with
regards to this story, and
this was the very first
thing that a lot of us said
when we saw it, you know,
there's no real story here.
This is just nonsense, just
numbers being thrown around
with no evidence, no actual
focus.
I mean, who has broken
into what, where, how?
There was none of that.
So, what is the purpose of
the story?
Well, the purpose of the
story in an election year is
to get people thinking that
dramatic steps have to be
taken.
Just like last year, when
the story about Kevin
Mitnick hit page 1 of the
New York Times, no one had
really heard of him
recently.
You know, we'd heard of him
several years ago, but
nobody knew he was on the
run.
All of a sudden, he became
America's most wanted
fugitive in the cyber world.
And it made the FBI, made
all the organizations look
for him all the harder, and
when they did find him, it
made them come down on him a
lot harder as well.
I mean, at this point, he
may never get out of prison.
We don't know.
We may have Bernie S.
online.
Let's see if we can do this
without screwing it up too
badly.
Good evening.
AT&T has a collect call from
Bernie S.
at the Bucks County
Correctional Facility.
To refuse this call, hang up.
If you accept this call, do
not use three-way or call
waiting features, or you will
be disconnected.
To accept this call, dial one
now.
Thank you.
Bernie S., welcome to the
show.
Hello.
We were just discussing,
before we get into your
plight, we were discussing the
most recent story about 250,000
hackers all lined up in some
kind of worldwide army that
are methodically hacking into
the Defense Department, or at
least the story that you may
get if you read the newspapers
and listen to mainstream radio.
Have you heard about this
story?
Yes, I have a radio and
actually now a television in
myself, thanks to some good
friends on the outside.
And I just found it
interesting, but not
surprising, that the media
and the government is
blaming the hackers for all
these security loopholes in the
systems that are apparently
very insecure.
Well, now, were you aware
that these numbers are based
upon Defense Departments
hacking themselves, that they've
been doing this over the past
18 months or so?
I didn't know these numbers
were based on that, but I'm
aware that they have these
so-called tiger teams that
are responsible for trying to
penetrate their own systems
and find out where the
holes are, but apparently
teenagers can be better at it
than they are.
Well, I mean, they're saying
that very few of these are
detected, so you have to
wonder where to get the
numbers if they're not
detected.
But the other thing, when
you see a 65% success rate,
you have to wonder just who
exactly are they dealing with?
It's not your average
everyday person coming in
on the Internet, that's for
sure.
I thought the numbers were
unbelievably high, but you
have to take into
consideration these are
government-issued numbers
and not necessarily accurate
numbers.
Well, there was a theory
going around that these
people were actually talking
about hits on a website,
and maybe 65% of the people
figured out how to type in
the URL correctly, and that's
what they were talking about.
Who knows?
I've actually seen warnings
on websites belonging to
military computers, where
they say that you're now in
government territory, and if
you do something bad, if you
download the wrong file, you
could get in trouble.
You know, on a website, they
don't really get it as far as
what the web is all about.
And I guess that puts me in
one of the 250,000 if I
actually went that far.
You could probably count for
several hundred hits
yourself.
Maybe not several hundred.
I don't stay where I'm not
wanted.
But, it's a scary thing.
We were theorizing as to what
the real purpose of releasing
this story was.
Well, I'd like to know,
apparently it was part of a
story was reporting a release
of a congressional report.
Am I correct in that?
Well, it was the General
Accounting Office had released
a rather, I guess, scathing
report of Defense Department
insecurity.
But, the Defense Department
and the Pentagon did not
refute it.
So, I guess they're looking
for money, as the government
always is, as the military
always is.
They're probably looking for
money to buy new and better
computers, which will
supposedly be more secure,
I guess.
Well, I mean, they have a
steady supply of computers
from people in this country
when they raid their houses
and take their computers.
They never give them back.
I guess if that's not good
enough, though, they will use
this money to get even better
machines.
I'm more concerned, though,
with what's going to happen
to people when they're
accused of hacking, of being
a hacker or a potential
hacker, and people remember
stories like this.
You know, they think that
they see terrorist scenarios
and foreign governments and,
you know, all kinds of evil
plots that happen, but somehow
hackers are being tied into it.
Well, when you get government
officials who have a certain
prestige or esteem, like
Secret Service agents or
military officials that say
hackers are a danger to the
society and one step above a
terrorist, that sort of thing,
as I was called in court earlier
this year, which is ludicrous,
as anybody who knows me, I'm
capable of violence or harming
anyone, but in any case, people
tend to believe this stuff, and
it's unfortunate.
It's just more misinformation.
Well, you see, the problem is,
as you say, you know, we know
you.
We know who you are.
We know, you know, what you're
capable of and what you're not
capable of, but the average
person does not know computer
hackers, does not know anyone
who's involved in this.
They just read these stories and
hear about it, and of course,
when somebody refers to
somebody as a computer hacker,
they naturally will assume the
worst, and, you know, this
could be why prosecuting you
went through without any
objection from any major group
or without much attention in
the press, because you were
referred to as one of those
hackers, and therefore, you
deserve the worst treatment
possible.
One of the reasons I did not
end up taking my case before a
jury trial is that my attorney
and I came to the conclusion
that just the public perception
of what a computer hacker is
was damning in and of itself,
and that alone may have been
enough for a jury to figure I
was guilty, whether, you know,
regardless of what I did.
So that was a big consideration
in my decision to plead guilty.
I think you hit the nail on the
head there, because that's
exactly what a lot of people
perceive hackers as.
You know, as soon as you call
somebody that, that's a very
negative thing, and that's
what we're trying with this
program, with 2600, and with
all kinds of other things.
We're trying to change that.
We're trying to reach out to
people, you know, average
everyday people like all of us,
and show them what hacking is
really all about.
It's a shame.
You know, I started fooling with
this stuff back when, as you did
as well, and many of our friends
have, when the term hacker was
considered an honorable thing,
and that somehow this term has
been borrowed and misapplied by
the media and the government
portraying people as evil.
And it's, you know, there are
evil people who hack, but that
doesn't mean that all hackers
are evil.
That's just false logic.
Right.
I mean, there's evil people
everywhere.
But, you know, I'd have to say,
in the hacker community, I see a
lot less evil people than in most
other communities.
I've got to agree with you there.
Bernie S., tell us what's up with
your case.
We haven't heard from you in
three weeks, and last we, last
time we talked, we were looking
at May 30th as a date you were
to be released.
However, I don't believe that is
going to happen, is it?
No, unfortunately.
I finally, last week, through some
supporters outside, got a copy of
some paperwork.
Actually, I got a copy of a
document called a detainer, a
document that was sent from
Northampton County Prison to
Delaware County Prison last year.
And the date of that detainer was
five days later, or six days later
than I had thought it was stated.
So the bottom line is my, uh, my
court-ordered minimum release date
should be June 5th, not May 30th.
But, unfortunately, even that hasn't
been, uh, uh, properly calculated by,
uh, by my keepers, or captors.
Um, so they still think they're,
they don't have to even consider
releasing me until June 12th.
I've, uh, sent letters, my attorney
has sent letters, I've had family
members make phone calls on my
behalf to try to get these people
to do their jobs and, and simply
read the sentencing judge's, uh,
order in a transcript.
I believe you were sitting there
and heard the judge order that I
would receive credit for time I'd
served last year on an original
state charge, which was later
dropped when, uh, the federal
government picked up the case,
namely the Secret Service.
So there were 35 days there I was
held while I was detained, um, by
Northampton County.
It's complicated.
The bottom line is the judge
ordered I should receive credit
for, for that time, and I'm not
being credited for that time yet
because my captors haven't
bothered to read the, the court
transcripts.
All right, so who is it who has
not done their job in this case?
It's a very good question.
I, I keep getting a lot of
finger-pointing and, and, uh,
excuses from, from both people
at Bucks County Prison and
Northampton County Prison here in
Eastern Pennsylvania.
Um, the people in, uh,
Northampton County say, well,
they don't see it that way,
and, but they admit, though,
that they haven't read the,
uh, the transcript.
They're just basing, uh, my
time, my sentence based on
time that I was incarcerated
since January 12th of the
issue, or re-incarcerated
January 12th of this year,
and they're not counting any
prior time that the judge
ordered I should receive
credit for.
It's basically just denying
that, uh, that the judge said
this, and I've mailed them
copies of the transcript,
and they're just apparently not
to bother and to read it.
I would say that the people in
the records department at
Northampton County Prison or
the warden at Northampton
County Prison would, uh,
would be the people who are
responsible for, uh, getting
this information to the
Pennsylvania State Parole
Board, so the parole board
is aware of the fact that I
should be eligible for parole
next week, not next month,
which I still don't think is
going to happen.
But, uh, so far there's been
no progress.
It's been just an extremely
frustrating experience when it
affects your personal freedom.
So, uh, I feel really,
pretty, uh, depressed right
now about it all.
Well, not to, not to sound
overly conspiracy-minded, but
do you think that there's some
sort of outside influence in
getting these people not to do
their jobs, namely from the
Secret Service?
Yesterday, um, actually this
morning, I came to the
conclusion that that was a
possibility.
I, several people had brought
that up to me over the past
few weeks, and I just
poo-pooed it.
It's like, nah, I don't want
to give the Secret Service or
whoever more credit than
they're, than they're due as
far as, uh, pulling off some
sort of thing like that.
But, uh, some of the answers
I got from a prison counselor
today led me to believe that
there was deliberately, there
was deliberate mishandling of
this.
It's the only conclusion I could
logically come to.
Now, it's all speculation, but,
uh, I do know, as a fact, and
you're a witness to the Secret
Service's being involved in a
manner in my case earlier in
such a way as to cause me to
be labeled and sentenced much
more severely than was, was,
you know, factually, uh, um,
warranted.
So, um, it wouldn't surprise
me that they've, uh, the
Secret Service might have got
involved in this case and
tried to, uh, just put the
kibosh on this being handled.
Oh, it takes us for my dot, my
papers to be put to the bottom
of the pile, and it gets delayed
that much longer.
But it's all speculation, I
don't want to place any blame
yet, and I don't think I'd
ever be able to prove such a
thing, because I'm sure it
wouldn't, it wouldn't be
stupid enough to leave a
paper trail if that, they
just make a phone call here
or there.
Uh-huh.
Well, I mean, we've seen over,
as you say, over the past,
uh, year, uh, how interested
the Secret Service is in
keeping you behind bars, and
we do know that they're very
upset by the existence of
this radio program, the fact
that you have found a way to
speak out and, and, and
voice what is happening to
you.
Uh, we know they want to
put a stop to that.
It seems kind of, kind of
weird that they would try to
do that by keeping you in
prison, so that you, you
spoke out even more.
It's really self-defeating
for them to do that, because
there's going to be more
negative publicity heaps on
them as a result of my being
held here past what, the time
that I'm sentenced to stay
here.
But, uh, I don't think they
think that way.
I don't really think they, uh,
care as much about the
negative publicity as they do
about, uh, setting an example
to, to would-be hackers to
not to, not to fool around
with technology they would
prefer people not fool around
with.
Well, you know, it's hard
to say what it is they're
thinking, and they may not be
thinking in a unified way.
There might be some elements
within the organization that
feel strongly about something
and other elements that don't
even know about it.
Regardless, though, even if
they are not involved in this
particular aspect, uh, we can't
forget what has happened in
the past, and we must, um,
call them to account for what
it is that they've done in the
past, and we can do that
through, uh, uh, elected
officials.
We can do that by just
telling other people, by
getting the word out in other
ways, and by making sure that
they don't have, uh, the, uh,
the possibility of doing this
to other people, because it
will happen to others.
It will probably happen to
people we know.
Um, a couple of years ago,
when Fiberoptic went to
prison, you helped, uh, helped
us take him there.
We, uh, we even stayed at
your house for a little while.
Even then, we didn't have any
idea that it would happen
again to one of us.
It just seems so far removed
from, from a possibility.
So, this is something that,
uh, we've been down this
road before.
I, I have little doubt we'll
be down it again.
Uh, we don't know who they'll
pick next as a target.
Thing is, we have to speak out
and prevent them from, from
being able to run roughshod
over our rights like this.
I agree with you.
I've been deliberating whether
it's, it's, uh, wise or not
for me to have people start, uh,
calling and, and writing letters
on my behalf to, uh, to my
captors starting next week
when I, when I officially
should be eligible for parole.
As far as I'm concerned, when
one is eligible for parole,
they should at least be
reviewed for parole, not just
not considered at all.
So, uh, I'm wondering whether
it would harm me or help me to,
uh, start a, a phone and
letter-writing campaign on my
behalf starting next, uh, next
Tuesday or Wednesday.
And, uh, I wonder what you,
what you thought about that.
Oh, I, I'm, you know I'm up
for it.
You know I'm up for it.
I, I know our listeners are
as well.
Well, I'll see, uh, I'll see
what my lawyer has to say.
Actually, he's on vacation
right now.
He won't be back until next,
uh, Tuesday.
But, uh, when he gets back,
I'll see what he has to say
about that.
Uh-huh.
Yeah.
Well, you know, lawyers tend
to advise you not to do things
like that, I've noticed.
Yeah, I'm sure he'll say,
well, you had nothing to gain
by doing that.
But, uh, he's not the one
in prison, you know.
Nothing else has worked.
You're the one calling the
shots here, actually, you
know.
True.
A lot of us really, uh, have to
take it upon ourselves to,
to, uh, take action in this
particular case.
But, uh, I mean, a legal
route has not worked.
You know, going through courts
and things like that,
obviously, uh, you know, the
game is, is, is heavily
favored for, for the
opposition.
So we have to think of
other strategies.
Well, I may have a list of
the names and telephone
numbers for next week's
program.
If, uh, if it looks like
I'm not going to be
considered by next week for,
uh, football.
Okay.
Um, well, I guess, uh, I
have one more news story to
read, then we'll take some,
uh, some phone calls.
212-279-3400.
Uh, this sort of relates to,
um, to people on the web,
organizations on the web
who don't have a clue.
Uh, the Pentagon may be one
of them.
Who knows?
If they think that 250,000
hackers are, are, uh, are
trying to get into their,
their website, who knows?
Uh, this, uh, this reflects
something from today's New
York Times.
The web review, well, her,
the web review, haven't we?
Yeah.
One of the best known of
the magazines found only on
the internet has stopped
publishing.
Wow.
I heard many gasps there,
out there in Radioland.
Yes.
They've stopped publishing,
and they have issued an
unusual appeal for financing
that draws on two models of
voluntary contributions.
Guess what one of those
models is?
That's right.
Public radio.
Where some supporters pay,
and the product is free to
all.
Or, like shareware,
where users who benefit from
a computer program are
expected to send payments
voluntarily.
Um, this is because of, uh,
of, of users' hostility to
subscription fees on the
world wide web.
You know, I knew this was
never going to work.
I knew people would never
pay to be on the web.
But, uh, all these, all these,
um, commercial entities think
that, uh, we're just going to
jump into it and somehow pay for
something that we've become
used to for free.
Pioneers in publishing on the
web are in an economic
quandary that is expected to
kill many more sites before
the computer network becomes a
truly mass medium.
So many sites are free that
only a few with special niches
have been able to charge users
a fee.
Web review began last July and
was published weekly with a
daily update known as a web
zine because it had no paper
counterpart.
It was one of the major
forums on the web.
An issue might contain a
lament about the dearth of
poetry on the web or a rant
about the spate of news
coverage of pornographic or
bomb-building sites.
Uh, the magazine said its
main audience was web
professionals, site builders,
administrators, and
programmers who had checked
for the latest on esoteric
topics like virtual reality
modeling language or vector-based
animation technology.
On May 17th, visitors who
tapped into the review's site
found a dear reader letter
from the publisher Dale P.
Dougherty announcing the
web zine's final issue
because advertisers were not
covering publishing costs.
You know, one thing you have
to understand about publishing
on the web, I mean, there are
costs, yes, but it's not like
publishing something on paper.
You know, it's a lot more
expensive to publish something
on paper and carry it around,
distribute it, have people sell
it at various places, and, you
know, do all that kind of thing.
When you put something out onto a
computer network, there's effort.
Yes, there's effort, there's
art design, there's things like
that, but it's not the same
thing.
You can't expect people to pay
for that kind of access in the
same, in the same manner.
It's just, it's not the same
form.
The letter said that web review
would return in June if 5,000
readers would pay $19.95 for a
six-month subscription.
How will we know if we don't
ask, the letter said.
You are voting on the future of
the web, and what you will find
there, web review is not alone
in having these problems.
Well, you know, I wish them luck,
and maybe they will get what
they're looking for, but I also
think that there are a lot of
people out there with access to
the net who can do what web
review has already done, and do
it for nothing, or do it for
very minimal costs, you know,
find other ways to raise funds
as well.
The web is something that is
still obviously being
constructed, but what we have to
remember, as we have to remember
with the internet and with
computer analogies in general,
it's just not the same thing as
the real world.
You know, accessing a computer
is not walking into someone's
house, and reading a zine on the
web is not the same thing as
going into a magazine store and
buying one and reading it, or
whatever.
What do you think, Barney?
I don't think people are going
to be willing to pay that much
for such a search.
I think as people work out the
protocols and technologies for
billing people in very small
increments for accessing web
pages, that may be more
feasible.
If it costs you one cent to
access web review every time you
do it, everybody who does it, I
think would be probably willing
to pay a penny for the
information, and I'm sure they
get more than the amount of
money they're asking for now.
If it's handled, they have to
work out that technology and
protocols and everything, and
that's probably a little ways off
still.
That's right.
These are the developing days, so
nobody knows what's going to
happen next, and that's the
beauty of it.
Okay, let's take some phone
calls.
212-279-3400 is our telephone
number.
The program is off the hook.
We're on until nine o'clock.
We have Bernie S. on the line
talking to us live from
Northampton County Prison in
Pennsylvania, where his presence
has still been requested for at
least another week.
And we'll, of course, be keeping
an update on that.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Whoops.
I didn't hit the right button.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Hello?
Yes, go ahead.
Hi, guys.
A few things.
First, Bernie, how is your
health?
You don't seem to be coughing or
anything.
I'm doing much better.
Is this Don Howell?
I'm glad to hear that.
Also, what happened last time you
reported, you said your cellmate
threatened to beat you up because
he wanted his TV instead of
yours?
How did that work out?
Surprising thing happened, Don.
This is Don, isn't it?
No.
Oh, me?
No.
No.
I'm sorry.
What do you have?
Caller ID there, Bernie?
I recognize the man's voice.
Oh, OK.
No, I don't have caller ID here.
All right.
They don't have much here.
So what happened?
It happened.
I tried to reason with a guy and
that was futile for about three
days.
And finally, I kept trying to
reason with him.
And finally, he saw the error of
his ways and said he apologized to
me for being, I'll say politely,
rude to me.
And he moved to another cell.
It was a power issue and he wanted
to take control of the situation.
I was willing to let him.
And I made him feel that I wasn't afraid
of him, which I wasn't.
And he backed down and left.
So I have another cellmate now who
coincidentally was recently moved here
from Northampton County Prison.
He used to work in the kitchen there.
So I somewhat knew him, not very well.
But we get along just fine and no problem.
So it was resolved peacefully and just
through mediation, it was resolved
without his violence.
So I'm glad that that worked out that way.
That's great.
I mean, you know, your freedom is so
close, you can taste it.
Just, you know, at night you can like
camp bikinis in Jones Beach because
you'll be there before you know it.
One other thing, Emmanuel, I want to
ask you a question about a friend of
mine and AT&T, you're aware AT&T has
a Universal MasterCard, right?
I am very aware of that, yes.
Now, my friend, like, had the
Universal MasterCard and for various
reasons didn't want to pay and
couldn't file bankruptcy because she
had filed bankruptcy within seven
years.
So she called them up pretending to be
someone else, saying the person was
dead.
Please close the account.
They boarded.
They didn't ask for a death
certificate or making any trouble.
They just sent a letter saying, we're
sorry, so-and-so died and blah, blah,
blah.
Now, that person currently has MCI as a
long-distance carrier.
What she wants to know is if for
whatever reason she wants to pick
AT&T, you know, to get the free
checks they sent at at Christmas time
or whatever, is there sort of
inter-office communication between
AT&T, the phone carrier, and AT&T,
the credit card?
Like, would they be able to find out
she's not dead, or like, should she
just stick with MCI and not look for
trouble?
Well, you know, dead people get mail all
the time, and I don't think they
really, they have enough trouble
keeping track of live people.
I don't think they really keep files
on who's dead.
So, you know, there's really only one
way to find out.
And if, you know, if they raise
questions, then, you know, I don't know,
say that it was a mistake.
Oh, yeah, that's, yeah, my friend is a
pretty shrewd cookie.
Also, where's Fiber today, and when are
you going to do the show on the MetroCard?
Well, do the show on the MetroCard, I
guess, as soon as we all board a bus and
play around with it.
Have you been able to crack anything?
I had a great opportunity to steal a bus
the other day, but I'm shooken out.
Steal a bus?
A bus idling on the corner, you know,
with nobody in it.
I mean, they shouldn't do things like
that.
Had a little, you know, antenna and all
that kind of thing.
Could have learned a lot, but probably
would have been...
No, in New York City, only, like,
17-year-old kids who want to be
motemen do that.
I mean, that's not your speed, but
anyway, okay, take care of you guys.
And, Bernie, like I said, you'll be in
Jones Beach before you know it.
Take care.
Bye-bye.
Okay, thanks for calling.
By the way, I made a mistake before.
I said you were in Northampton County
Prison.
Of course, that is not correct.
You were in Bucks County Prison.
Thank you for straightening that out.
Yes, you were in Northampton County
Prison.
You were also in Haverford Township
Prison?
I was in a holding cell in Haverford
Township, and then I was transported to
Delaware County, Pennsylvania Prison.
Then I was transferred to the Secret
Service, who put me into the custody of
the U.S. Marshals, and they put me in a
federal prison in Fairton, New Jersey.
And then I was released for a few weeks,
and then I was then incarcerated in
Northampton County Prison, and then I was
transferred to Bucks County Prison.
So it gets pretty confusing.
This has all happened in less than a
year's time.
And all this free travel, you don't have to
pay for that, huh?
I'm doing the tour.
Wow, that's quite a deal there.
Anyway, 212-279-3400.
Good evening.
You're on Off the Hook.
Yeah, hi.
I wanted just to ask you a question about
phone number area codes.
I was wondering, do you know, is it possible
for someone in, let's say, a 718 area code to
get a phone number with a 212 area code, or
vice versa, or anything like that?
Well, you can get what is known as a foreign
exchange, and what that will do.
There's a couple of ways to do it.
You can pay to have an exchange in another area
code that will ring to your local number, and
you can also just have a phone there and have
it forward, so it appears that you have a
number there.
And there's a couple of ways of doing that.
If you go through the phone company, of
course, they'll charge you a certain fee for
that, but a cheaper way is to just have somebody
there in the city that has a phone, and you
just get a phone in their place and have it
forwarded from there.
That's the smart way of doing it, in my
opinion.
Could I ask Bernie a question?
Go right ahead.
Sure, I might want to say, if you're
considering receiving a high volume of calls
that way, it may be more expensive to
handle it.
I don't know if there's a toll call going
from 782 or 212.
They may not be.
I'm not from New York.
But if it's a low volume of calls, that's
definitely the way to go.
Yeah.
Now, I was just sort of curious.
Your decision not to go to a trial jury because
of this fear of being stigmatized by the label of
hacker.
Was the attorney who made that decision, is that
the same attorney you have now?
Yes.
And I respect his opinion.
He's a former federal prosecutor.
He seems to know a lot about these cases.
And he has a fairly good handle on the public
perception.
And he's been before many juries before himself
as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney.
He just knows how the Secret Service was planning
to misrepresent certain facts in the case.
And he felt a jury being non-technical and being
impressed by Secret Service agents testifying would
simply believe them as opposed to believing me.
And it's also the fact that I'd already spent my
entire, practically my entire amount of time in
prison already.
If I, if I decided to take the jury trial, if I was
convicted, I would have received a harsher sentence
than if I pled out, which is what I did.
And if you plead out, then you get a reduced sentence.
You get something called two points off for acceptance
of responsibility.
Because it requires them to not have to go through the
expense of a trial.
But the other advantage of pleading guilty, and the
other main reason I did, is to preserve my right to
appeal the unconstitutionality of the new law that I was
charged with violating.
And I've already filed my federal appeals briefs, and
they'll be heard probably this flaw by a three-judge panel in
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Had I just gone before jury trial and been found guilty, I
wouldn't have had the same opportunity to appeal the
constitutionality of this law.
So, you know, there were other reasons I did it, so that's the
long and short of it.
Well, I find it pretty amazing that you can be so rational in the
way you're presenting this.
Because all I see is somebody in prison for over a year who doesn't
belong there.
And you see it in a different way.
You see it as, you could have been, it could have been even worse if
you had gone a different road.
There's another angle on that, which you, maybe I don't know whether you
considered it or not.
And that is that it would not be good for the government if such a trial
became public and you were victorious.
And the fact that you have an attorney, I don't know how you came in contact
with this attorney, but somebody who has worked as a federal prosecutor
obviously still has contacts in that world.
Sure.
I would be maybe a little suspicious myself.
I was, but frankly, I just felt beaten down at that point.
Yeah, well, that's understandable.
I'd been locked up without bail for over six months.
And I'd had it.
The only, at that point, I didn't care if people put a scarlet letter on my
forehead.
I wanted to get out of prison.
And I did what I had to do to get out.
Yeah, but now you're still in prison.
You know, an attorney's job is to convince a jury of the innocence of a
client.
And this attorney apparently was telling you that he was incapable of
convincing the jury of your innocence.
And at that point...
It sounds very neat when one hears it that way, but these things are not
black and white.
The case was incredibly complicated.
I'm sure.
People who were technically inclined found it unbelievable.
And a jury of lay people would have just been baffled by the whole thing and
just said, okay, we don't understand this.
We're just going to say guilty.
Even though they have to find somebody guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I read the handwriting on the wall.
I felt like a steamroller was rolling over me.
And I did what I had to do.
Bernie, I understand how you feel.
But I also, I can see the point the caller is trying to make.
I mean, in recent months, for instance, your attorney really has not been, I
guess, as active as he could be because, based on your ability to pay.
Is that not true?
Well, that's a concern he voiced to me about a month ago.
Unfortunately, I only had about $5,000 in savings.
But you're in prison.
So, I mean, it's very hard for you to pay attorney fees when you're in prison.
Unfortunately, our criminal justice system meets out more justice to those who have the
means to finance adequate representation.
I mean, it just works, it all works out to money.
You can get public defenders, but public defenders or court-appointed attorneys who are told to
represent you with no charge typically will not represent you with much vigor as a paid
attorney.
I do think my attorney did a lot of work.
And he may have made mistakes in retrospect, and I may have made mistakes in retrospect.
But at the time, I felt like I was doing what I had to do to get out of jail.
Right, but you see, you're using the past tense.
You're saying he did a lot of work.
And I get the impression now that, you know, he's not really there trying to get you out
of prison.
I think that should be the number one goal of any attorney, if he's still employed by
the person, that he should be trying to get you out.
Well, I feel if I push any more with this guy, he'll just write me off and say, all right,
I don't want this case anymore.
And I'm not going to be able to find another attorney with no money at all.
I did give this guy a few thousand dollars of my money.
I owe him a lot more, but, you know, if he drops this and it's turned over to somebody
else, nobody else is going to represent me, frankly.
I realize that, but, you know, I'm hopelessly naive in matters like this.
And I think attorneys should be kind of the same thing as doctors.
You know, they're required to treat you if you need help.
And just because you do not have the adequate funds to, you know, to pay the guy right away,
I don't think he should be any less enthusiastic about overturning the case.
Well, I agree with you, but it's just the way it is, unfortunately.
Yes.
All right, thanks so much for the call.
Thank you.
Take care.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
That's delay, yes.
Turn down your radio.
You're on the air.
Oh, yeah, you caught me.
If you think the feds can't be vindictive and use hackers this way, remember what they
did to Randy Weaver up in Ruby Ridge?
They had the only, the nation's only full-time SWAT team up there and mistakenly shot his
wife, murdered his son, and wounded him in the leg.
And that was no accident.
They were just showing those people, those right-wingers who they got no use for, hey,
listen, guys, straighten up and fly, right?
We're going to, we don't mind making things uncomfortable for you.
Well, you know, it's a very interesting point.
This kind of federal prosecution, or persecution actually is a better phrase, has brought together
people that never would have been brought together before.
Ruby Ridge, Waco, militia people, and hackers, they're all pretty much identifying with each
other now because of the way the federal government has prosecuted them and been completely unfair
in their characterizations.
And I think if they continue to behave in this manner, there'll be all kinds of other
strange bedfellows in the world.
Listening to BAI and reading some right-wing literature, you see the same complaints.
It's just, it got to the point, and it's the government is the focus of it all.
Well, it's unconscionable that this land of the free is not, and they're coming down
on anybody who makes them uncomfortable.
That's all there is to it.
And it's sad that whatever it is that makes their minds up as to who should be away and
how far away, I mean, that's it.
I mean, they ended up paying the Weaver guy, I don't know, three million bucks because they,
whoops, we made a mistake.
We entrapped you, but meanwhile, they murdered his wife and his son.
That's, that's, you know, it doesn't come any harder than that.
It's quite a mistake.
Yes.
Thanks for a good show.
Okay.
Thanks for calling.
Thank you.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Yes.
I was wondering if I could comment on the, off the hook show.
Well, you are on off the hook now, so this would be a good opportunity.
I'm sorry.
I wanted to thank your colleague, Bernie, who's currently incarcerated.
I'm an attorney.
I'm a, I've represented a number of persons who, companies and small firms in the computer
area, and I've also done some criminal work.
And I was going to, one, commend you for the, the support that you're giving to him by staying
on the line and keeping him in, in the network of friends and colleagues.
Because I felt, and I've always seen that that's been key.
And also just to be positive in terms of making a positive contribution to him to see if there,
if he would like that there'd be letters and, and, and the kind of support that yourself and
other, others of, of who are interested that we can send to can try to let the system or the court
system or parole system know that he's a person that we feel will make an important contribution
to this issue of technology and its relationship to society.
I just don't think that anybody in the system will find that, particularly on the defense
side, will find that that's going to hurt him.
It can only help him.
And I just think what you're doing is, is very important, not just in one case, but in terms
of the constitutionality and constitutional concerns of everybody.
And the bottom line, of course, is that the prosecution is, is duty bound by the constitution
to protect and do right and do justice.
And so in a certain sense, that's something that we can all appeal to because we have it
in common.
So again, thank you for your help and I wish him the best.
Well, now as, as an attorney, I'm wondering what kinds of, first of all, I think that the,
the credit should be shared by, by BAI listeners and people who have written to Bernie.
But as an attorney, I was wondering what kind of take you have on the things we were saying
before about, uh, about how attorneys, uh, sometimes are able to stay with their clients.
Sometimes they don't.
I mean, how do you see the whole relationship there?
I thought that, uh, it's a, it's, it's, it's a complicated relationship.
I thought that what you were saying was valid and what the callers were saying were valid,
which is that it is like a medical relationship, a dentist, a doctor, someone who's a, who's a
care provider by law, actually in terms of New York state law, at least any attorney is
bound to, to the, to fight vigorously for their client, regardless of whether they have a dime
or not, that's the law.
And if the, if the attorney doesn't do it, the attorney can be disbarred and lose their,
their meal ticket themselves.
On the other hand, there's also, I sympathize and, uh, empathize with what Bernie was concerned
were, which is the immediacy, how to, how to get into a position of liberty so that their,
their, their interest can be advanced.
And that's valid as well, um, because I don't think it's fair to, to disregard their concerns.
So I, I think that it's, I think that nobody loses when, when the client and the attorney
are, are as upfront and as honest as they are in terms of their concerns.
I just think it helps the attorney understand where the client's coming from and it helps
the client understand that the attorney's limitations, that they're, that they're human,
they have to eat, they have to pay their rent.
And at the same time, uh, uh, many of us are not in it to get, uh, goo gobs of money.
We're in it because we, because, because the issues of freedom are of importance to us and
we want to do right or we wouldn't be in it.
So I, I think that it, it, again, it helps that there are facilities and an online community
to, to discuss this because it's almost like it brings us all before the court of public
opinion.
And that's the best place for the lawyer and for the client.
Very well said.
Thank you.
Thank you for calling.
You're welcome.
You should get that guy for your lawyer, Bernie.
I did.
You there?
As an attorney, he does seem to know what he's talking about.
It's, it's, it's a really complicated relationship and we have a complicated case that makes it
even more complicated, but it's, it's just, it's just hard to look at it in a black and
white way.
And, uh, I don't feel that I was dealt short shrift by my attorney in any way.
He's under a lot of pressure from his firm.
He's not a self-employed attorney, works for a large firm.
He has to answer to the senior partners.
You know, it's, it, there's a lot of, a lot of fine lines involved here.
But in any case, uh, to get to what he, he had mentioned about, uh, people do contact in
writing or by, uh, telephone, uh, to, to help me, uh, in my release.
Uh, as of next week, I should officially be released or eligible for parole.
And if that hasn't happened by next Tuesday, um, I will, uh, provide you folks with a list
of names and phone numbers unless I have compelling reason not to by someone between now and then.
So, I'll get that ready.
Okay, and you can count on us to, uh, to, to put the pressure on if, uh, if, if things
don't start moving by then.
Uh, 212-279-3400 is our telephone number.
Good evening.
You're on off the hook.
Yeah, I had a couple of comments and a question.
Go ahead.
I, comment number one, you were talking about 65% of hackers wanted to go into the, break
into the, um...
Well, not, first of all, you gotta turn on your radio.
Oh, hold on a second.
You'll get hopelessly confused.
As, as will we.
Here he comes.
Yes, hello?
Okay, yes.
Yeah, I'm sorry about that.
Okay.
Okay, yeah, I, I remember a movie about, uh, 12 years ago, War Games, and it kind of, like,
glamorized, you know, breaking into the, the, the, the Defense Department computer.
So, I can see, like, people being a little mischief here, and, you know...
Well, you know, Mission Impossible glamorizes riding on top of high-speed trains, but it's
not the kind of thing that, uh, people are necessarily gonna go out and do.
Yeah, but that, that, when you're riding a high-speed train, you're riding on a high-speed train,
I mean, people with half a brain will realize, you know, you might fall off it.
But if you go onto the Defense Department computer, basically, what's gonna, you know, something
could happen to you.
If people with half a brain were running them, 65% wouldn't be getting in, you know?
Right.
I think that's what you have to be looking at.
I, first of all, I, I dispute that number.
I don't think 65% of everybody who tries gets in.
I didn't say the number was correct or not.
My point is that I could see people trying to get into it.
Yeah, but you see, what you have to understand is, when you try and hack into a system on
the internet, it says where you're coming from, you know?
Unless you, uh, unless you dial in directly, and then there's phone records to deal with.
Wait till, like...
You have to, you have to mask your identity pretty well.
Yeah, it's a way that you can, you can, you can somehow reroute yourself so you're not
who you are, you say you are.
Right, but we're also paranoid now that we're convinced we're being watched everywhere,
so I don't think many, very many people are gonna go out and attack the Defense Department
from their bedroom.
I just, I don't know what...
I don't know many people that would do that.
I wouldn't, I'm a hacker, I wouldn't do that.
Uh-huh.
But I can understand, like, a young kid, you know, let's say young kids might do graffiti.
They might go for, you know, a computer, you know, if someone's, like, more intelligent,
they might, instead of doing graffiti on someone, on a wall, they might try to attack
someone's computer.
Uh-huh.
So, well, I mean, you know, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but the way that the hysteria
that we're seeing, as far as what the, uh, what threat hackers pose, it's blown way out
of proportion, and it's blown way out of proportion for a purpose, so that something, some kind
of public opinion, uh, can be planted and, uh, and later harvested in some way, and that's
what I think we have to be worried about now.
I don't think that legislation or, or anything else can change human nature, and it's, it's
their human nature to, for people to want to, uh, try things that are challenging, whether
it's climbing, uh, uh, Mount Everest, or, or going down a White Rider River in a kayak,
or, or what.
I mean, with hacking your Pentagon computer system, people are going to try it.
Whether that's right or wrong isn't the issue.
People are going to try it.
Yeah, I agree.
People are going to try it.
I had one other question.
Have you tried the free phone service on the internet?
Uh, free, uh, describe it for us.
Uh, there's a way that, let's say...
You mean, uh, internet phone, iPhone, that kind of thing?
I'm not sure what it's called, but if I have internet, if I have a phone on my computer,
right?
Yeah.
And my friend's got a phone on a computer, we can make it on a local phone call, I
could call him across country for free.
Right, across the world, actually.
Yeah, it's, it's been, it's been around for, I think, over a year now.
Yeah, it's been, I've seen it advertising.
The see you, see me allows you to send a picture at the same time.
Uh, it's, it's something that's in its infancy right now.
It looks terrible, it sounds terrible, but it does allow you to communicate.
Phone companies are up in arms about it.
It's something that no light, uh, no doubt will, uh, will succeed and offer a way to communicate
for very low cost.
And that's what, uh, that's what the internet is all about.
All right, thank you very much.
Thanks for calling.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Hello.
Yes.
Uh, yes, in the context of what you were talking about at the present time, the third president
of the United States, uh, wrote, the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time
with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It, it is natural manure.
In fact, Jefferson also wrote that, um, uh, that, um, the government should be overthrown every
25 years.
Uh, there was another president, a 26th president of the United States, uh, pointed out, um, do not
hit at all if it can be avoided, but, but, uh, never hit softly.
Uh-huh.
Now, these people, these people were, um, were founders of this country.
Do you know if those people were on the internet today, they'd be labeled a threat?
Of course they would.
Of course they would.
Uh, but of course the 26th president of the United States, uh, was termed to be insane.
He was termed to be mad, a madman, and all kinds of things like that.
And, uh, uh, in fact, uh, uh, he was robbed of the nomination in, uh, in, uh, 1912.
And, uh, unfortunately, he, uh, he, uh, died before, uh, the elections in, uh, in 1920.
In point of fact, there are, there are people, um, from April 20th of this year who, on the
steps of the, uh, of the house, uh, where, where TR was born, uh, proclaimed a rebel Republican
movement, and these, these people, uh, uh, are talking in terms of, uh, going back to
the policies of Teddy Roosevelt, uh, of, uh, uh, John Llewellyn Lewis, of, uh, uh, Thomas
Borer, and so on.
In point of fact, as it's my understanding that these people, uh, have, uh, among their
numbers, uh, uh, uh, rather prominent, uh, members of American families.
Uh-huh.
Well, yeah, I think it's very interesting to, uh, to point to the past and see the, you
know, the different perspectives, how they parallel some of the things that are, that
are happening today.
And we can't, we can't forget what thing, what events have occurred in the past, what
people have said in the past.
And if we simply, um, uh, move them to this particular time period, we might be able to
actually get a little bit of perspective as to, uh, as to the relevance of it all.
Thanks so much for calling.
We have one more call that we're going to get to, hopefully.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Okay, you could have been that call, but, uh, let's try again.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Yeah, listen, I just happened to hear your program, uh, not too, too much of it.
There's a question that I wanted to ask you.
Yes, go ahead.
Yeah, uh, my name is, uh, Richard from Peaksville, New York.
Uh-huh.
This is kind of, now, about a year and a half ago, I got in a little trouble up here.
And I certainly shouldn't have, but the story goes, I was, uh, as it turned out, I was having
a heart attack.
I didn't even know it was a heart attack.
And I had called the police a couple of times to take me to the hospital.
And then when I got to the hospital, uh, my doctor wasn't there, so I came back home
the first time.
And then when I, and then, uh, I was having a breathing problem, and then when I called
them, uh, a couple of more times, they finally came over here, and they locked me up for
harassing them.
See?
And then I went, I went to jail over here.
They locked you up for harassing him when you were having a heart attack?
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, but they didn't know I was having a heart attack, and neither, neither did I.
I was just, uh, having breathing problems.
And I didn't know what it was.
I had to open a window, and, and, and, and, and, and, and gaff for air.
Uh-huh.
And, uh, the second time, they locked me up for harassing them.
Uh-huh.
I stayed in jail 21 days, 20 days about, before I was bailed out.
And then, uh, when I went back to court, my, uh, the lawyer came to see me.
He was a terrible, uh, lawyer.
Absolutely terrible.
Yeah.
He told me to plead guilty, and, uh, which I did, because I, the way he said it, that it
was, because I had already did three weeks in jail, and for the offense, I ain't, I thought
they'd give me time to serve.
Well, to make a long story short, they gave me three years probation.
Wow.
And I didn't even, and I just still didn't know I had a heart attack until I was in jail
and went to the hospital.
And they, uh, they admitted me immediately.
My heart was working at 20% efficiency, and I, and they put me on ICU, and I stayed up
there about three weeks.
And then, uh, uh, the judge had given me 30 days to appeal the case.
My lawyer didn't appeal, and then when, and then when I found out, myself, there was,
there was my heart that was causing me to call the, uh, the police for assistance.
I tried to contact his office.
He, he, he, he was, he was, I didn't know what other things to say except that he was
avoiding me those 30 days, and I, and, and I didn't get my appeal in time.
And then, uh, I finally wrote to Brooklyn, the appeals court myself, and, uh, because
I, I, I'd call around, ask for other lawyers, who should I write about this appeal thing?
They told me the, uh, uh, the court of appeals in Brooklyn, but, but they gave me the wrong
section.
It's probably in the same building, but it, uh, uh, I think I wrote the court of appeal.
I, I should have wrote the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, all this legal, uh, legal stuff.
But anyway, it was just, uh, uh, the wrong department, but it had to do with appeals, but
I had to go to the wrong department, and they wrote me back telling me where to write.
The second time that I wrote them, I waited about two months again, and they wrote back
and told me that, that I was not in their computer.
Wow.
Because, uh, because the, uh, because the appeal wasn't put through in time, which was
not my fault.
I mean, just...
Sir, I don't, I, I hate to cut you off, because it's a very interesting story, but can you,
we, we, we're out of time.
Can you just tell us how the story ended, real quick?
Well, uh, I'm still on probation.
Uh-huh.
And, uh, you know, and I'm living up here in, in the prison industrial complex, and so it,
it, it, it, it's very simple to get locked up up here.
Yeah, I can imagine.
Yeah, and, uh, you know, and I don't know what to do, but I talked to the other lawyer.
They want $10,000 for me to go to appeals court.
Well, you know, I, I see the parallels here, and, uh, you've both been screwed by the system.
Yeah, yeah.
And my sympathies, and, and, uh, unfortunately, we're out of time, but I, I, I wish you the
best.
I'm sorry, but I was trying to get you, but, but, but, uh, you know, for time, but you
were talking to other people.
Right.
All right, well, it's nice next week, and if you can get through them, maybe we can, uh,
go into this a little bit more.
Bernie, real quick, your address for people to write to you, Ed.
Uh, please, anybody that, uh, has the time or opportunity, if you can mail me, uh, letters,
cards, uh, magazines, books, I'd appreciate it.
Uh, my address here is, uh, Ed Cummings, C-U-M-M-I-N-G-S, chair of Bucks, B-U-C-K-S, county
prison.
That's at 1730 South Easton Road.
That's E-A-S-T-O-N.
And that's in Doylestown, D-O-Y-L-E-S-T-O-W-N-P-A-1-8-9-0-1.
And please write on the package, reading materials.
If you don't write that, they won't let me have it.
Yeah, I found that out the hard way.
If you don't write reading materials on an envelope, it just comes right back as if you
don't exist.
Yeah, but I want to thank everybody who sent me things to read, because it's, uh, it's
really been an uplifting experience.
That's right.
And it's something I need right now.
Okay, thanks very much for being with us.
And, uh, we'll talk to you again next week.
Hopefully we'll have some, some better news then.
And, of course, if you want to send an email to Bernie S, Bernie S, B-E-R-N-I-E-S
at 2600.com.
The telephone keeps ringing, so I ripped it off the wall.
I cut myself while shaving, now I can't make a call.
It couldn't get much worse, but if they could, they would.
But they live on for the best, expect the worst.
I hope that's understood.
But they live on.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.