Subject: RE: IS THIS A DEATH THREAT? Sent: 01/04 1:28 AM Received: 01/04 10:38 AM From: Stormfront-l, stormfront-l@stormfront.org To: jamie@voyager.net From: Jeff DranetzReturn-Receipt-To: Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 20:28:43 -0500 Subject: RE: IS THIS A DEATH THREAT? Your advice is well taken. I shall refrain from such acts that could be = construded as criminal or some sort of Civil Rights violation. I am = sorry to hear of your imprisonment, I am surprised, I had thought this = was America. All the more reason to vote for candidates that would seek = to protect our First and Second Ammendment Rights.=20 I hearby recommend to all readers not to take part in any such email = terrorism. This is now my official position on the matter. =20 Jeff ---------- From: Stormfront-l[SMTP:stormfront-l@stormfront.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 1996 6:01 PM To: jeffd@xensei.com Subject: RE: IS THIS A DEATH THREAT? From: don.black@stormfront.org (Don Black) Date: Wed Jan 3 1995 Subj: RE: IS THIS A DEATH THREAT? ->From: Jeff Dranetz ->Return-Receipt-To: ->Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 11:41:11 -0500 ->Subject: RE: IS THIS A DEATH THREAT? ->What is Curt Bolder's email address, I'll have a surprise for him in = =3D ->his email box. I have devised a way to sign people up for 993 email = =3D ->lists from Netcom with one simple email message. This should silence = =3D ->Curt Bolder for a while. Jeff, I know you don't think these kind of juvenile games are illegal, = but I'm not so sure. Since many of us on this list have also been subject to e-mail bombs, I've spent the last hour re-reading parts of the = Electronic Communications Privacy Act 0f 1986 and commentary on related statutes. Though "spamming" isn't mentioned, an ambitious federal prosecutor might = be able to claim spamming, regardless of the method used, constitutes = malicious destruction of data. I'm sure they wouldn't go to 0the trouble, of = course, unless the defendant was someone they really wanted to make a case = against...a "hater," for example. I spent two years in prison for violating the Neutrality Act, a vague eighteenth century law which hadn't previously = been invoked in fifty years. If spamming is illegal, the penalty would presumably be determined by = whether or not the offense was conducted "for purposes of commercial advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or private commercial gain." In this = case, "a fine of not more that $250,000 or imprisonment for not more than one = year, or both, in the case of a first offense," and "a fine or imprisonment for = not more that two years, or both, for a subsequent offense." Otherwise, "a = fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or = both." Keep in mind sentences can be stacked for each offense, and that anyone discussing commission of any illegal act can also be charged with = conspiracy, regardless of whether the act was actually committed. That'd be another = five years. Not to worry, though, Jeff, I found federal prison a great = learning experience :-). Since I've already "graduated," though, and since others here may want = to remain "uneducated," don't post any more of this stuff on this list. Regards, Don ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: Multiple recipients of the Stormfront Mailing List Host: don.black@stormfront.org (Don Black) To unsubscribe, send e-mail to 'listserv@stormfront.org' with the line 'unsubscribe Stormfront-L' in the message BODY. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Processed with Listserv v2.77 for Wildcat v4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: Multiple recipients of the Stormfront Mailing List Host: don.black@stormfront.org (Don Black) To unsubscribe, send e-mail to 'listserv@stormfront.org' with the line 'unsubscribe Stormfront-L' in the message BODY. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Processed with Listserv v2.77 for Wildcat v4
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor