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