[8303] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: * EDGAR and A-130
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Hughes)
Sat Nov 13 03:23:16 1993
From: dave@oldcolo.com (Dave Hughes)
To: shaynes@research.westlaw.com (Steve Haynes)
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1993 01:20:58 -0700 (MST)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com (compriv), love@essential.org
In-Reply-To: <9311122137.AA07239@research.westlaw.com> from "Steve Haynes" at Nov 12, 93 03:37:29 pm
Steve Haynes, of WESTLAW, in a lengthy posting regarding
James Love and TAP, said:
>Ah, Jamie, once again by dealing in half-truths and innuendoes
>you are casting aspersions upon an honorable person -- in this
>case, me. One of these days someone is going to sue you for
>libel, so watch it.
OH, A THREAT OF LAWSUIT FROM A LARGE LEGAL PUBLISHING COMPANY!
>... Early in our tracking of Jamie Love and the Taxpayer Assets
^^^^^^^^
>Project we discerned that Jamie was using an "edu" address for
^^^^^^^^^^^^
OH, WE DON'T LIKE WHAT HE SAYS SO LETS SEE IF WE CAN ASSASINATE
HIS CHARACTER. AND WE SURE 'TRACK' OUR CRITICS.
>It seemed to us that, if Jamie was going to pursue his activist
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>affairs, he should do so without the support -- tacit or
>otherwise -- of educational institutions.
^^^^^^^^^^^
WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF YOURS *WHAT* HE USES? ARE YOU FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE?
>Please inform me if Mr. Love pays for his access to your host.
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
WHO ARE YOU TO ASK A SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR ABOUT WHO OF THEIR
USERS PAY FOR WHAT?
>3) "Well," says I, "perhaps Jamie is a Temple employee and we
>just don't know it. Let's inquire a bit further."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
YEAH, WE HAVEN'T FOUND A SMOKING GUN YET. LETS KEEP DIGGING,
SOMETHING IS BOUND TO TURN UP WE CAN USE AGAINST HIM.
> We are concerned that Mr. Love is getting a "free ride"...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WHY IS THIS ANY CONCERN OF WESTLAW?????????????????????????
***ESPECIALLY WESTLAW, WITH FAT GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS???????
WHAT A GLASS HOUSE FROM WHICH TO THROW STONES!
> response that Mr. Love is a Temple University employee? If
> so, what is his title, please?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ABOUT THIS TIME IN THE LONG SERIES OF EXCHANGES BETWEEN
HAYNES OF WESTLAW, A PRIVATE COMPANY, AND A UNIVERSITY
ADMINISTRATOR I BEGAN TO ASK, JUST *WHO* IS THE ONE RIPPING
OFF UNIVERSITY RESOURCES HERE (TIME AND UNIVERSITY STAFF
EFFORT) EXPECTING THEM TO DO INVESTIGATIONS FOR WESTLAW JUST
TO DIG UP DIRT IF THEY CAN?
BECAUSE I'LL BE DAMNED IF I THINK *ANY* OF THIS WITCHHUNT
HAD *ANYTHING* TO DO WITH WESTLAW'S ALTRUISTIC CONCERN THAT
SOMEONE IS MISUSING UNIVERSITY RESOURCES.
>5) Not wishing to suggest that Temple ought to censor anyone,
>not even Jamie, I replied:
> In fact, we would not think of asking the Mr. Love be
> censored. As publishers, we are too much aware of the
> dangers of _that_ particular road.
WHY? BECAUSE *YOU* WILL GET SUED? OR IS IT JUST, AS YOU
DISSEMBLE, IN THE IDEALISTIC INTERESTS OF FREE SPEECH?
> have a healthy dialog with Mr. Love on a variety of issues
> he has raised. However, we are also concerned that Mr. Love
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> not be, as you put it, "abusing some computer resource or
> ... the rights of others" in the process of expressing his
> views. To the best of our present knowledge he has no
> association with Temple University. We are checking that.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Moreover, the finger command yielded the following:
> are investigating further.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF WESTLAW MONEY IS BEING SPENT TRYING TO
DISCREDIT, NOT THE POSITIONS OF TAP, BUT ITS PERSONNEL.
> Thank you again for your reply and cooperation. I shall not
> bother you further unless we turn up some information
> we feel you should know.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AND YOU HAVE THE GALL TO ACCUSE LOVE OF SPREADING 'INNUENDOS'?
>7) Neither I nor anyone else at West knowingly had any contact
>with Jamie's wife's employer. Until this present exchange of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>messages, I had not the slightest idea that he and the
>individual, Manon Ress, were related.
WELL, WHAT THE HELL DID YOU EXPECT, AFTER RUMMAGING THOUGH
ALL OF PACKWOODS, ER, LOVE'S DIARIES? AND YOU DON'T THINK
THAT IT HAS BEEN *YOUR* WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED ACTIONS THAT
CAUSED TROUBLE FOR HIS WIFE? DID YOU ASK LOVE STRAIGHT TO ]
HIS FACE WHY HE WAS USING AN .EDU ACCOUNT?
IF I WERE HIS WIFE I WOULD BE LOOKING UP A FEW LAWS MYSELF.
AND IF I WERE THE ADMINISTRATORS WHO EXCHANGED PRIVATE
ELECTRONIC MAIL WITH YOU, I WOULD BE ASKING *YOU* WHETHER
YOU HAD MY PERMISSION TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS PUBLIC - HERE.
>The fact that Jamie apparently was surreptitiously using his
^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>.... never became known to us except as may be inferred by
>the preceding. The fact that Temple Internet administrators,
>as Jamie puts it, "cause[d] her some unpleasant problems this
>past September," appears to me to have been brought on
>entirely by his abusing her privileges at the University.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AHA! NOW WE HAVE THE SMOKING GUN! (OR AT LEAST SMOKE THAT HAS LET
US MAKE PEOPLE *THINK* THERE IS A REAL GUN THERE). WHAT TORTURED
REASONING! WHAT SUPERCILIOUS HUBRIS! WHAT A TRAIL OF RED HERRINGS
AWAY FROM ISSUES OF SUBSTANCE BETWEEN TAP AND WESTLAW.
>But then Jamie has already shown that he is willing freely to
>spend other people's money.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WELL, LET ME PUT IT TO YOU STRAIGHT, WESTLAW'S HAYNES. IF YOUR
SALARLY IS PAID FROM GOVERNMENT CONTRACT FUNDS, YOU ARE SPENDING
*MY* TAX MONEY. SO I WANT TO KNOW WHETHER ONE DIME OF THIS WITCHUNT
EFFORT BY A WESTLAW EMPLOYEE WAS REIMBURSED FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE
OVERHEAD PERMITTED IN YOUR GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS? I.E. WAS *I* PAYING
FOR YOUR SO-CALLED RESEARCH?
WILL IT BE LOVE'S INCOME TAX RETURN NEXT?
I THINK THIS IS THE SLIMIEST REVELATION OF THE LENGTHS TO WHICH A
PRIVATE COMPANY SUCKING AT THE TEATS OF GOVERNMENT WILL GO TO
SILENCE ITS PUBLIC-INTEREST CRITICS I HAVE SEEN SINCE NIXON AND
WATERGATE. AND WHAT IS ASTONISHING IS THAT ITS INSTIGATOR
VOLUNTARILY HAS TOLD THE STORY, STILL CONVINCED THAT HE DID NOTHING
WRONG!
