Taken from Posted Message

On 14 Aug 1999 15:31:10 GMT, Howard Knight quoted "MJ" == Mike "Dirty Dick" Jones <boxcooler@workmail.com>, who wrote:

MJ> Received: from smtp05.primenet.com (smtp05.primenet.com [206.165.6.135])
MJ>     by primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA07935;
MJ>     Sat, 14 Aug 1999 06:12:55 -0700 (MST)
MJ> From: boxcooler@workmail.com
MJ> Received: (from daemon@localhost)
MJ>     by smtp05.primenet.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id GAA255966;
MJ>     Sat, 14 Aug 1999 06:12:54 -0700
MJ> Received: from rmx04.iname.net(206.253.130.33), claiming to be "rmx04.globecomm.net"
MJ>  via SMTP by smtp05.primenet.com, id smtpdfU1Sqa; Sat Aug 14 06:12:46 1999
MJ> Received: from weba3.iname.net  by rmx04.globecomm.net (8.9.1/8.8.0) with ESMTP id JAA22893
MJ> Received: (from root@localhost)
MJ>     by weba3.iname.net (8.9.1a/8.9.2.Alpha2) id JAA01611;
MJ>     Sat, 14 Aug 1999 09:12:40 -0400 (EDT)
MJ> MIME-Version: 1.0
MJ> Message-Id: <9908140912409T.19161@weba3.iname.net>
MJ> Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 09:12:40 -0400 (EDT)
MJ> Content-Type: Text/Plain
MJ> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MJ> To: howardk@primenet.com, dritz@primenet.com
MJ> Cc: boxcooler@workmail.com
MJ> Subject: ANTISPAMMERS LOSE BY NEW LAWS.
MJ> Status: R
MJ>
MJ>
MJ>            Antispammers will now have to hide their tracks better.
MJ> New California laws stomp on antispammer beliefs. A friend sent
MJ> this information to me and it checks out. Beware atispammers in
MJ> particular "HOWARD KNIGHT" these laws currently apply directly to
MJ> you. Soon the new laws will be used in virtually every state. Now
MJ> is an excellent time to slap antispammers with lawsuits.
MJ> Collecting retroactive damages are a good possibility. The laws
MJ> state these are criminal laws. (JAIL TIME haha for antispammers.)
MJ> Have fun, no one deserves it more then you people.
MJ>
MJ>             I thought you might be interested in this.
MJ> California enacted 2 antispam laws effective Jan 1 1999
MJ>
MJ> AB1676
MJ>
MJ> AB1629
MJ>
MJ> Now both laws are very clear and only use the words "electronic
MJ> mail messages" or "email" when refering to legal restrictions and
MJ> never make reference to Usenet, newsgroups, nntp protocol. We both
MJ> know usenet is a public forum and not "Electronic mail" Almost any
MJ> person in the Internet business could show a judge USENET SPAMMING
MJ> is not "electroic mail messages spamming" so niether law applies
MJ> to Usenet spamming even if it violates the ISP'S TOS. That only
MJ> applies to EMAIL SEE BELOW
MJ>
MJ> Extract AB1629 CALIF
MJ>
MJ> f) (1) In addition to any other action available under law, any
MJ> electronic mail service provider whose policy on unsolicited
MJ> electronic mail advertisements is violated as provided in this
MJ> section may bring a civil action to recover the actual monetary
MJ> loss suffered by that provider by reason of that violation, or
MJ> liquidated damages of fifty dollars ($50) for each electronic mail
MJ> message initiated or delivered in violation of this section, up to
MJ> a maximum of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) per day,
MJ> whichever amount is greater.
MJ>
MJ> Clearly the language and the intent of this law has nothing to do
MJ> with or does it cover Usenet spamming.
MJ>
MJ> The reason I must make emphasis on how both bills clearly DO NOT
MJ> in anyway infringe on mass Usenet posting is because within AB1629
MJ> is a criminal law that Howard Knight seems to be breaking and
MJ> defenders of him would be quick to over generalize and exaggerate
MJ> that these laws make Usenet spamming illegal. They would do this
MJ> in order to take away from the fact Howard Knight clearly seems to
MJ> be violating California State law, a state I might add that he
MJ> lives in. and a state from which he procures his cancels.
MJ>
MJ> Showing proof of those cancels to the county or state prosecutor
MJ> in Howard's area is sufficient proof for a prosecutor to open an
MJ> investigation.
MJ>
MJ> Here is the law extract 1629 Calif.
MJ>
MJ> (c) Except as provided in subdivision (h), any person who commits
MJ> any of the following acts is guilty of a public offense:
MJ>
MJ> (4) Knowingly accesses and without permission adds, alters,
MJ> damages, deletes, or destroys any data, computer software, or
MJ> computer programs which reside or exist internal or external to a
MJ> computer, computer system, or computer network.
MJ>
MJ> Lets take this sentence "Knowingly accesses and without
MJ> permission" This is easy to prove. Knight is all ways boasting
MJ> about "Knowingly" Canceling
MJ>
MJ> Canceling meaning an overt action of "accessing." He must access
MJ> the data (the post) in some way to cancel it. Knight regularly
MJ> "without permission" cancels (deletes) Usenet messages (data).
MJ> Lets take the next sentence ", deletes, or destroys any data,
MJ> computer software, or computer programs " deletes, or destroys any
MJ> data is clear a Usenet message is ANY data and because in its raw
MJ> form it is 010101010101 THIS IS
MJ>
MJ> DATA
MJ>
MJ> Next sentence " which reside or exist internal or external to a
MJ> computer, computer system, or computer network." self evident the
MJ> internet is a computer network.
MJ>
MJ> So is Knight guilty? Did he violate this statute proven by very
MJ> clear and almost indisputable evidence? Yes. In this case the law
MJ> is clear and Knights action are Very clear case. Lets see what
MJ> Howard wins if he continues his canceling hobby
MJ>
MJ>
MJ> (d) (1) Any person who violates any of the provisions of paragraph
MJ> (1), (2), (4), or (5) of subdivision (c) is punishable by a fine
MJ> not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment
MJ> in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three years, or by
MJ> both that fine and imprisonment, or by a fine not exceeding five
MJ> thousand dollars ($5,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not
MJ> exceeding One year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
MJ>
MJ> In this case he violates Para 4.  OOPS and its criminal not CIVIL
MJ>
MJ> WHAT DOES THIS MEAN
MJ>
MJ> If enough of you Usenet posters send signed complaints with proof
MJ> of your data (Usenet post) being deleted and destroyed on a
MJ> computer network without your permission I think it is possible to
MJ> get a prosecution of Howard Knight.
MJ>
MJ> And the law doesn't say "deletes, or destroys any data" except
MJ> Usenet spam. The law makes no distinction if the data is a picture
MJ> of mommy posted or 10000 identical posts. and this is the smoking
MJ> gun against Howard. He can't hide behind "DAH, but these are spam
MJ> and many ISP'S wanted to me to cancel it". Doesn't matter anymore
MJ> under Calif. law. He still knowingly and without permission of the
MJ> person who originated that data deleted data on a computer
MJ> network.
MJ>
MJ>
MJ> If someone could publish the prosecutor office for Howard's area I
MJ> would like to fill my complaint. No civil law hereon needed TO
MJ> SUE, Just send a complaint to the prosecutor.
MJ>
MJ> There is a very good good chance if enough complaints are sent
MJ> explaining and proving the consistent conspiracy of your data
MJ> (Usenet post) being deleted and destroyed on a computer network
MJ> without your permission I think it is possible to get Howard
MJ> Knight. Convicted
MJ>
MJ> If with every cancel, a separate complaint is filed. This would
MJ> amount to thousands of complaints against Howard Knight. Simply
MJ> contact the prosecutor office and ask them how you file complaints
MJ> against people breaking this law. Go to Deja, print every copy of
MJ> Howard's cancel reports and attach a complaint for each one and
MJ> submit it. Watch control.cancel and print every cancel that is
MJ> your post and file a complaint for each separate cancel this could
MJ> work very well and not take to much time.
MJ>
MJ> It is conceivable the prosecutor will have to open up an
MJ> investigation.. This means legal fees for Howard Knight unless he
MJ> is so broke he get a public lawyer. This is the cheapest and most
MJ> powerful easy way to fuck up Howard Knight
MJ>
MJ> CYA LAW ENCLOSED
MJ>
MJ>
MJ> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1629_bill_19980928_chaptered.html
MJ>
MJ> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/asm/ab_1651-1700/ab_1676_bill_19980928_chaptered.html
MJ>
MJ>
MJ>
MJ> ------------------------------------------------------
MJ> Get the Latest News at CNN Interactive: http://CNN.com