Re: denial of service and government rights

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>]

On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:

> Black Unicorn wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > > Black Unicorn wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > > > > > Example:  George Bush's old pal at the Wash. DC P.R. firm hires the
> > > > > > niece(?) of a Kuwaiti official to testify in front of Congress in full
> > > > > > view of the American people on television, that the Iraquis were throwing
> > > > > > babies out of incubators in Kuwait, thereby securing the necessary votes
> > > > > > in Congress to prosecute the Gulf War.
> 
> [snippo]
> 
> > Fraud is an excellent answer because it is a meaningless answer.  Fraud is
> > traditionally used to prosecutue those not-quite-a-crime cases because the
> > definition essentially comes down to : "That guy did something we don't
> > like."
> 
> [much drivel snipped]
> 
> So what you're saying is I (or we) can testify in front of Congress on
> essentially any topic, telling a blatant lie (that we know is false, and
> which they will subsequently prove is false), and totally get away with
> it.  You and I can do that, is that what you're saying?

What you're talking about is contempt of congress.  This is not "fraud."

The penality imposed would be purjury.  I don't believe that during that
discussion, the witness was sworn, but I could be mistaken.  In any event,
purjury is purjury, but it hardly rises to the level of conspiracy your
post originally indicated.

> If that is true, then my original contention that things are far worse
> than the person I originally responded to was imagining, stands as
> correct.  Things are bad indeed.

"I had no idea what I was talking about, but as luck would have it I was
right anyhow."

Here, have a bozo button.

--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key   Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist         Switzerland