Time: Wed Nov 13 09:39:21 1996 To: PatriotUSA@aol.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: experiment to isolate correct encoding Cc: Bcc: Check this out: >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:38:05 >From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] >Subject: experiment to isolate correct encoding > >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