Time: Wed Nov 13 09:38:03 1996
To: minutemn@pcl.net (Mike Kemp)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: experiment to isolate correct encoding
Cc:
Bcc:
Mike,
There is a chronic problem with email
software: they do not automatically
detect the encoding method, unless
both programs (sender and receiver)
and the same. Thus, if you were using
Eudora Pro, as I do, then Eudora would
detect the encoding automatically.
If you do not have a program which can
detect the encoding I use by default,
then it may not be able to decode at
your end. I have the following three
choices:
1. BinHex (my present default)
2. MIME
3. Uuencode
I can re-send everything in both
MIME and Uuencode. But, before I
waste my time on trial-and-error,
you need to agree to do an experiment
with me. I can send you three small
test files which are identical,
except for the encoding which I have
used at my end. The test file will
be PKUNZIP.EXE, uncompressed. When
you get this file, test it by doing
the following at the DOS prompt, after
changing to the directory where this
attachment was written by your computer:
pkunzip /?
So, if your email software writes attachments
in C:\TEMP, then do this:
C:\MYDIR> cd \
C:> cd temp
C:\TEMP> pkunzip /?
This will produce user documentation
on the screen, without reading any
files, if it is working. If it is
not working, you will know immediately.
Let me know when you are ready to do
this experiment.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 09:28 AM 11/13/96 -0800, you wrote:
>Paul:
> Here is the same thing, different format. It might or might not
>work better on your machine.
> I appreciate the pkunzip. I don't know what is the matter with
>this machine. It really doesn't like such things. It STILL won't work.
>The pk program does, but it says the freshly downloaded pgp is *damaged.*
> It REALLY toasts my buns.
>
>In Liberty,
>Mike
> by ntpcl.pcl.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0813 ID# 0-13621)
> with SMTP id AAA121 for <minutemn@pcl.net>;
> Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:27:08 -0600
>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:24:44 -0500
>From: DotHB@aol.com
>Message-ID: <961113092443_1250190708@emout03.mail.aol.com>
>To: minutemn@pcl.net
>Subject: Fwd: No Subject
>
>Here is the same thing - different format from Kay Stern.
>DB
>---------------------
>Forwarded message:
>From: pstern@dnet.net (Peter Kay., Stern)
>To: DotHB@aol.com
>Date: 96-11-12 19:51:31 EST
>
>--=====================_847857128==_
>
>Whoops! Wrong format...sorry!
>
>Attachment Converted: C:\EUDORA\GRDJURY.TXT
>
>--=====================_847857128==_
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="GRDJURY.TXT"
>
>As pertains to Grand Jury in the instant matter, the following citations on
>Grand Jury procedure MUST be met, or the Grand Jury process is tainted, the
>purported indictment(s) void;
>
>1. Was the grand jury conducted pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in
>United States v R. Enterprises Inc., 111 S.Ct. 722, 726 (1991)? Was every
>proper witness and clue examined in every proper way?
>
>No! I don't think so! Avra Lee wasn't called.
>
>2. Had the grand jury, in substance, abdicated? Costello v United States, 350
>U.S. 359, 365, 76 S.Ct. 406 (1956).
>
>3. Grand jury could only indict on proof sufficient to warrant conviction.
>Charge to the Grand Jury, Fed. Cas. No. 18,246 (C.Ct.D. Conn. 1867) {not
>provide the U.S. Attorney\prosecutor a speaking forum, a place to bring
>personal vendettas, a means of intimidating enemys, or a means of institution
>of a politically motivated fishing expedition}
>
>It appears that this is McCullough's last hurrah!
>
>4. Did the grand jury act as a shield between the government and the
>defendant? Wood v Georgia, 82 S.Ct. 1364, 1373 (1962).
>
>Not hardly...especially if they did not see ALL the evidence!
>
>5. Was the grand jury acting independently of either the prosecuting attorney
>or the judge? Stirone v United States, 361 U.S. 212, 80 S.Ct. 270 (1960).
>
>Want to take bets on this one?
>
>6. Did the grand jury clause of the Fifth Amendment act as a safeguard
>designed to protect this defendant from opressive governmental practices?
>United States ex rel Toth v Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 79 S. Ct. 1 (1955).
>
>It does not appear so in this case!
>
>7. Was there a significant infringement of the grand jury? United States v
>Larrazolo, 869 F.2d 1354, 1359 ((th Circuit 1989).
>
>Based on McCullough's conduct (stealing their evidence) I doubt it!
>
>8. Was the grand jury degraded into a rubber stamp and the testing of the
>prosecutor's evidence into an empty ritual? United States v Al Mudarris, 695
>F. 2d 1182, 1188 (9th Circuit 1983).
>
>Probably!
>
>9. Was there prosecutorial misconduct in front of the grand jury? United
>States v Samango, 607 F.2d 877 (9th Circuit 1979).
>
>Ref: The evidence being swiped by McCullough...you bet!
>
>10. Did the prosecutor express an opinion on the weight and sufficiency of
>the evidence? United States v Wells, 163 F. 313 (D. Idaho 1909).
>
>?
>11. Did the grand jury have freedom of deliberation? In re Grand Jury
>Subpeona, 920 F 2d 235, 241 n. 8 (4th Cir. 1990).
>
>?
>
>12. Did the prosecutor usurp the function of the grand jury? United States v
>Isgro, 751 F. Supp. 846, 849-850 (9th Cir. 1990).
>
>It appears like it!
>
>13. Was the grand jury composed of a fair cross-section of the community?
>United States v Pottorf, 769 F.Supp. 1176, 1186 (D. Kan. 1991).
>
>Can't tell.
>
>14. Was the grand jury free from outside influence? Matter of Grand Jury
>Investigation, 748 F. Supp. 1188, 1194 (E.D. Mich. 1990)
>
>?
>
>15. Was there improper influence on the grand jury? Application of Jordan,
>439 F. Supp. 199, 210 (S.D. W. Va. 1977).
>
>Based on McCullough's conduct, you bet!
>
>16. Did Congress have the constitutional authority, in the first place, to
>enact the so-called 'law' or 'statute' the United States Attorney is trying
>to manipulate the grand jury into bringing an indictment on? Charge to the
>Grand Jury, Fed. Cas. No. 18,258 (C.Ct. W. D. N.C. 1875).
>
>I don't see it...but that's an argument for another time. The above is more
>than sufficient to quash the indictments and kill this whole thing.
>
>
>--=====================_847857128==_--
>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail