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