Time: Tue Apr 22 17:30:47 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA01081; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 14:47:44 -0700 (MST) by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA17636; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 14:43:58 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 15:29:11 -0700 To: harold@halcyon.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: USA v. Gilbertson, sentencing hearing Status: U Harold, Thanks for the tip. This is extremely valuable and I will forward it to the client. I am not absolutely sure at this point in time what exactly happened, but the Federal Public Defender has become extremely evasive and non-cooperative, calling ALL of our legal work "BS"! Many thanks, again! /s/ Paul Mitchell At 02:00 PM 4/22/97 -0700, you wrote: >Paul, fellow I forwarded your Gilbertson email to had this response >directed at the issue of the "intercepted fax". Thought you might want >to consider his point. > >Harold (5.65v3.2/1.1.10.5/10Nov96-0444PM) > id AA08665; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 06:58:51 -0700 > (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <harold@halcyon.com>); Tue, 22 Apr 1997 06:58:22 -0700 > by emout12.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) > id JAA25717 for harold@halcyon.com; > Tue, 22 Apr 1997 09:58:11 -0400 (EDT) >Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 09:58:11 -0400 (EDT) >From: D1CAMERON@aol.com >To: harold@halcyon.com >Subject: Re: [Fwd: SLS: USA v. Gilbertson, sentencing hearing] > >Hi Harold, > >Interesting situation here. Valid point, Tax Protesting is not illegal. > However of note, If this FAX was intercepted electronically by any one, and >communicated to a second party, or used in any way, without a court order >allowing such interception and use, is is a violation of Federal Laws. The >Federal Communications Act provides a ten year and $10,000 dollar sentence >for such violations. > >If it was intercepted after it was sent, ie some one got a copy of it, thats >a different ball game, but still may be in violation of the FCC rules if it >has not been deliverd to the addressee, or the copy made before it was >delivered. That would still constitute interception. > >Once it has been delivered to the addressee, then the theft of the document >would be under other than the Federal Acts relating to electronic messages >and communications as such. The specific acts covered by the Federal >Communication Act are well defined and they are enforced.. Factually there >are some communications, specifically radio, that the mere act of listening >to constitutes interception under the FCC laws...Strange as that may seem. > >Needs more then an ethics comission here... > >Thanks for the foreward. >TTYL >Dean > > > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail