Posts by Kent

posted

2
Watchtower's Brothers In Arms Threatens Websites
by Kent in
1. jw
2. friends
date: thu, 28 jun 2001 16:09:18 -0500. from: ezola < [email protected]>.

to: john young < [email protected]>.

subject: dmca and church of l. ron hubbard .
Kent

I don't know, and I find them online by searching.
Yakki Da
Kent
"The only difference between God and Adolf Hitler is that God is more proficient at genocide."
Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
http://watchtower.observer.org
2
Fun For The Paranoid!
by Kent in
1. jw
2. friends
[notices] .

from the federal register online via gpo access [wais.access.gpo.gov].

[docid:fr27jn01-56] .
Kent

Hi bendrr
I agree in all you say, except this info is for real. The source is one of the few serious sites online - and inteligence organizations all over the world has tried to close them down. Especcially MI6, since they published the names of their agents :))
¨
The url to the site itself is:
http://cryptome.org/
These guys is NOT the paranois "Patriot" guys. I have read lots of their stuff, and laughed my ass off. Cig packets are marked with KKK signs (Marlboro) etc. Lots of fun, and the conspiracys never ending.
Cryptome, on the other hand, is the most trustworthy site on this stuff I have found so far - and I never found anything I can prove is wrong.
Check it out - and tell me if you find something that doesn't smell good!
Yakki Da
Kent
"The only difference between God and Adolf Hitler is that God is more proficient at genocide."
Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
http://watchtower.observer.org
12
I've got a letter that needs answering!
by Kent in
1. jw
2. friends
-----original message-----.

from: ray huffman [mailto: [email protected]] .

sent: 30. juni 2001 21:33. to: [email protected].
Kent

-----Original Message-----
From: ray huffman [mailto: [email protected]]
Sent: 30. juni 2001 21:33
To: [email protected]
Subject: (no subject)
i em not a J.W. but i do believe these people are the nicest and most religious honoring people iv come to know .Why do you like to bash the witnesses , i really don't understand??? Take a look around this world and tell me something , If there was a god would he like the negative things you are doing or would he like the positive things the witnesses are doing , im not a very smart man but i can tell you this If i was to join any religious group i would sure talk to the J.W.s first.
-----------------------------------
Maybe this person will get smarter?
Yakki Da
Kent
"The only difference between God and Adolf Hitler is that God is more proficient at genocide."
Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
http://watchtower.observer.org
Big Brother Watches In UE As Well!
by Kent in
1. jw
2. friends
on law enforcement operational needs .

law enforcement operational needs .

applicable services .
Kent

COUNCIL RESOLUTION
of
on law enforcement operational needs
with respect to public telecommunication networks and services
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Recalling the objectives of the Treaty on European Union;
Bearing in mind the Council Resolution of 17 January 1995 on the lawful interception of telecommunications;1
____________________
1 OJ C 329, 4.11.1996, p. 1.
Reaffirming the need, when implementing telecommunications interception measures, to observe the right of individuals to respect for their privacy;
Considering that criminals, like anyone else, use telecommunications in pursuit of their objectives and that they take advantage of opportunities offered by telecommunications systems both to avoid detection and to commit offences;
Convinced that lawful access to these telecommunications is vital in the investigation of serious crime and the prosecution of offenders;
Aware of the impact on lawful interception of new and emerging technologies in telecommunications;
Bearing in mind that the aim of the Resolution of 17 January 1995 was to provide a platform for discussion with Telecommunications Providers on Law Enforcement Agencies' operational needs rather than imposing legal obligations on them;
Taking into account the ongoing work of Law Enforcement Agencies to cooperate with the telecommunications industry in discussions of operational needs and means of meeting them;
Aware of the fact that the Resolution of 17 January 1995 described the operational needs of the Law Enforcement Agencies, but that the development of new technologies has made it necessary for some further explanation;
Noting the requirements of Member States to continue and maintain lawful interception capabilities;
Considering that the Annex to this Resolution constitutes an important summary and explanation of the operational needs of law enforcement agencies in taking account of new and emerging technologies,
HEREBY ADOPTS THIS RESOLUTION:
The Council calls upon Member States to ensure that, in the development and implementation – in cooperation with communication service providers – of any measures which may have a bearing on the carrying out of legally authorised forms of interception of telecommunications, the law enforcement operational needs, as described in the Annex, are duly taken into account.
______________________
ANNEX
Law Enforcement Operational Needs
Contents
General
Applicable Services
Law Enforcement Operational Needs
General Observations
Access to Telecommunications
Access to Communications Related Data
Conditions for Access
Delivery of Interception Product
Security of the Interception Facility
Access to Information on the Subject of Interception
Other Assistance
Access to Multiple and Simultaneous Interceptions
Reliability of the Interception Facility
Encrypted Services
Glossary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
Subject to national legislation, all kinds of telecommunications may be subject to interception and/or data searches in relation to enquiries. This document relates to the operational needs of Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) with respect to public telecommunication networks and services. It does not recommend technical specifications or solutions but is a set of guidelines for technical discussions, which will be needed for implementation.
Applicable Services
This document applies to all telecommunications services, circuit and packet switched, fixed and mobile networks and services.
For fixed networks this includes, for example, PSTN and ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network). For packet switched networks and services this includes, for example, GPRS, UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System), xDSL, TETRA (Trans European Trunk RAdio standard), Email/message services and other Internet telecommunications services. For PLMN this includes, for example, GSM (Global System for Mobile communications), CDMA, IS41, AMPS, GPRS, UMTS, TETRA. It also applies to S-PCS (Satellite Personal Communication Systems).
Law Enforcement Operational Needs
General Observations
The International User Requirements (IURs), see OJ C 329, 4.11.1996, p. 2, were written at a time when telecommunications were predominantly circuit switched. Although this may have influenced the terminology used throughout the IUR, law enforcement's needs are technology neutral. The IUR expresses law enforcement's general operational needs regardless of technology even if some of the terms used, e.g. "call", appear to limit their scope to specific technologies. More detailed clarification of this and other terms is provided throughout this document.
Throughout the document, each IUR item is presented first, followed by explanations/clarifications where applicable. The items are presented in functional rather than numerical order.
Access to Telecommunications
[IUR 1] Law enforcement agencies require access to the entire telecommunications transmitted, or caused to be transmitted, to and from the number or other identifier of the target service used by the interception subject. Law enforcement agencies also require access to the call-associated data that are generated to process the call.
"Call" in this context means the entire telecommunications transmitted, or caused to be transmitted, to and from the entity associated with the number or other identifier specified in the legal authorisation. "Number" or "Identifier" is the means by which telecommunications facilities determine specific communications. Identifiers may refer to a physical or logical entity (e.g. user addresses, equipment identities, user name/passwords, port identities, mail addresses, etc.) and may differ according to the type of telecommunications system.
Typical, but not exclusive, examples for some specific services are: For PLMN IMSI, MS-ISDN, IMEI; for PSTN/ISDN directory numbers, port identification, personal and vanity numbers; for Internet (access) services IP addresses, account number, logon ID/password, PIN number and E-mail address.
Law enforcement needs the transmitted and received components of intercepted telecommunications to be delivered such that those components can be handled separately. (For example, this applies in telephony-like networks to ordinary calls between A and B party, conference calls, etc.).
Contemporaneous telecommunications should be handled in such a way that it is possible clearly to distinguish between them. (Some examples of telephony-like networks are enquiry calls, simultaneous forward calls, etc).
Law enforcement needs any telecommunications associated with the identifier of the subject of interception.
"Call Associated Data" should be understood as being "Communications Related Data" throughout the document. (See explanation under IUR 1.4 for more detail).
[IUR 1.1] Law enforcement agencies require access to all interception subjects operating temporarily or permanently within a telecommunications system.
Law enforcement needs access to telecommunications even when the subject of an interception is a temporary user of a network or telecommunications facility. (Some illustrative examples are: in PLMN roaming; in telephony-like systems UPT and calling cards; in Internet services remote access via other service providers, etc.).
[IUR 1.2] Law enforcement agencies require access in cases where the interception subject may be using features to divert calls to other telecommunications services or terminal equipment, including calls that traverse more than one network operator/service provider before completing.
As stated above, "Call" should be understood as "Telecommunications". Law enforcement needs any telecommunications associated with the identifier of the subject of interception. (Examples for telephony-like systems are diversion of calls or direct communication to a voicemail box).
Access to Communications Related Data
[IUR 1.4] Law enforcement agencies require access to call associated data such as:
The needs explained in 1.4 apply to all telecommunications services. However, the information resulting from the interception will depend on the telecommunication service (e.g. conference calls, call-forwarding, mobile calls, network calls, call-back services, etc.). For packet switched services this information could already be part of the packets.
NB: similar data to those referred to in 1.4 are needed not only when such data are received as a result of interception but also where they have been retained by providers in accordance with the requirements of their national legislation.
[IUR 1.4.1] signalling of access ready status;
1.4.1 expresses the need for an indication that the user facility is being logged on, or connected, to the telecommunications service.
[IUR 1.4.2] Called party number for outgoing connections even if there is no successful connection established;
[IUR 1.4.3] Calling party number for incoming connections even if there is no successful connection established;
1.4.2 and 1.4.3 express the need to be aware of all the numbers or identifiers related to attempted telecommunications involving the interception subject. This applies whether or not the telecommunications to or from the interception subject are successful.
[IUR 1.4.4] all signals emitted by the target, including post-connection dialled signals emitted to activate features such as conference calling and call transfer;
1.4.4 expresses the need for access to all signals emitted by the interception subject and particularly applies to signals that activate or facilitate telecommunications facilities (e.g. re-routing). They may reside within the telecommunication but should not necessarily be considered as part of the content of that telecommunication service.
[IUR1.4.5] Beginning, end and duration of the connection;
1.4.5 expresses the need for the most accurate time stamps the telecommunication system can provide on telecommunications and on telecommunications–related signals. (In most cases there will be no need to calculate the duration).
[IUR 1.4.6] actual destination and intermediate directory number if call has been diverted.
1.4.6 expresses the need for the provision of numbers or identifiers involved in the telecommunication when re-routing is invoked by users.
[IUR 1.5] Law enforcement agencies require information on the most accurate geographical location known to the network for a mobile subscriber.
1.5 expresses the need for location information which may be geographical, physical or logical. Even fixed networks facilitate mobility by means of services such as personal numbering/UPT, dial-in networks for ISPs (Internet Service Providers), re-routing, etc.
The type of information provided will depend on the network, but should be as accurate as possible.
It should also be presented in a form that is easily interpreted.
[IUR 1.6] Law enforcement agencies require data on the specific services used by the interception subject and the technical parameters for those types of communication.
1.6 expresses the need for information on the services used in the intercepted telecommunication. This information assists the correct interpretation of the communication content. Some illustrative examples are: bearer services in ISDN; the bearer and tele-services in GSM, etc.
Conditions for Access
[IUR 1.3] Law enforcement agencies require that the telecommunications to and from a target service be provided to the exclusion of any telecommunications that do not fall within the scope of the interception authorisation.
1.3 is self-explanatory, but it should be noted that fulfilling the need in detail will depend on individual national jurisdictions.
[IUR 2] Law enforcement agencies require a real time, full time monitoring capability for the interception of telecommunications. Call-associated data should also be provided in real time. If call-associated data cannot be made available in real time, law enforcement agencies require the data to be available as soon as possible upon call termination.
2 expresses the need for telecommunications to be provided to the intercepting agency without undue delay. This will depend on the typical performance of the technology used and any special conditions imposed (e.g. for security, see also IUR 3.5).
Provision of a real time and full time monitoring capability might require resilience. The means used to achieve this capability will depend on the intercepted technology (e.g. circuit or packet switched) and national jurisdictions.
Delivery of Interception Product
[IUR 3] Law enforcement agencies require network operators/service providers to provide one or several interfaces from which the intercepted communications can be transmitted to the law enforcement monitoring facility. These interfaces have to be commonly agreed on by the interception authorities and the network operators/service providers. Other issues associated with these interfaces will be handled according to accepted practices in individual countries.
3 is self-explanatory.
[IUR 3.1] Law enforcement agencies require network operators/service providers to provide call-associated data and call content from the target service in a way that allows for the accurate correlation of call-associated data with call content.
3.1 expresses the need for correlation. This may be intrinsic in some technologies where communications-related data are delivered together with telecommunications content. However, where this is not the case, a reliable method for correlation should be used. (For example, time references are not acceptable because they may be ambiguous e.g. Standard Time, Summer Time, and where simultaneous communications can be in progress).
[IUR 3.2] Law enforcement agencies require that the format for transmitting the intercepted communications to the monitoring facility be a generally available format. This format will be agreed upon on an individual country basis.
3.2 is self-explanatory.
[IUR 3.4] Law enforcement agencies require network operators/service providers to be able to transmit the intercepted communications to the law enforcement monitoring facility via fixed or switched connections.
3.4 is self-explanatory, but it should be noted that the term "service providers" applies to all telecommunications providers. "Switched connections" include both circuit and packet services.
[IUR 3.5] Law enforcement agencies require that the transmission of the intercepted communications to the monitoring facility meet applicable security requirements.
3.5 expresses the need for transmission of intercepted telecommunications to be performed in such a way that the confidentiality and integrity of the product are maintained. The product may be used as evidence for both defence and prosecution purposes; the confidentiality needs to be maintained both to meet privacy considerations and for investigative reasons.
[IUR 5.2] Law enforcement agencies require network operators/service providers to ensure that intercepted communications are transmitted only to the monitoring agency specified in the interception authorisation.
5.2 is self-explanatory and applies to all telecommunications providers.
Security of the Interception Facility
[IUR 4] Law enforcement agencies require interceptions to be implemented so that neither the interception target nor any other unauthorised person is aware of any changes made to fulfil the interception order. In particular, the operation of the target service must appear unchanged to the interception subject.
4 is self-explanatory, but it should be noted that telecommunications services or networks must be capable of performing interception without indicating this to other services or networks.
[IUR 5] Law enforcement agencies require the interception to be designed and implemented to preclude unauthorised or improper use and to safeguard the information related to the interception.
5 is self-explanatory, but it should be noted that security considerations cover issues such as unauthorised access to facilities, site and personnel security.
[IUR 5.3] According to national regulations, network operator/service providers could be obliged to maintain an adequately protected record of activations of interceptions.
5.3 is self-explanatory, but it should be noted that the same level of security applies to records of activation as to the interception facilities. The term "activation" also covers cessation and extensions.
[IUR 5.1] Law enforcement agencies require network operators/service providers to protect information on which, and how many, interceptions are being, or have been, performed and not disclose information on how interceptions are carried out.
5.1 is self-explanatory, but it should be noted that it applies to all telecommunications providers.
Access to Information on the Subject of Interception
[IUR 6] Based on a lawful enquiry and before implementation of the interception, law enforcement agencies require:
1) the interception subject’s identity, service number or other distinctive identifier,
2) information on the services and features of the telecommunications system used by the interception subject and delivered by network operators/service providers and
3) information on the technical parameters of the transmission to the law enforcement monitoring facility.
6(1) and (2) express the need for information which will support LEAs' requests for interception. Typical information required about the subject of interception includes: a technical identifier; the full name of the person (or company) subscribing to the service; the residential address of the subscriber (or registered business address of a company); the postal address to which accounts are sent; credit card details sufficient to identify the account; the directory name if applicable (note that this may differ from the subscriber's name); the directory address if applicable (note that this may differ from the residential or postal address).
6(3) does not directly relate to the subject of interception but is necessary for the general support of interception.
Other Assistance
[IUR 7] During the interception, law enforcement agencies may require information and/or assistance from the network operators/service providers to ensure that the communications acquired at the interception interface are those communications associated with the target service. The type of information and/or assistance required will vary according to the accepted practices in individual countries.
7 is self-explanatory.
[IUR 9] Law enforcement agencies require network operators/service providers to implement interceptions as quickly as possible (in urgent cases within a few hours or minutes). The response requirements of law enforcement agencies will vary by country and by the type of target service to be intercepted.
9 expresses the need for administrative facilities and technical designs which enable providers to implement interception efficiently.
Access to Multiple and Simultaneous Interceptions
[IUR 8] Law enforcement agencies require network operators/service providers to make provision for implementing a number of simultaneous intercepts. Multiple interceptions may be required for a single target service to allow monitoring by more than one law enforcement agency. In this case, network operators/service providers should take precautions to safeguard the identities of the monitoring agencies and ensure that confidentiality of the investigations. The maximum number of simultaneous interception for a given subscriber population will be in accordance with national requirements.
8 is self-explanatory and applies to all telecommunications providers.
Reliability of the Interception Facility
[IUR 10] For the duration of the interception, law enforcement agencies require that the reliability of the services supporting the interception at least equals the reliability of the target services provided to the interception subject. Law enforcement agencies require the quality of service of the intercepted transmissions forwarded to the monitoring facility to comply with the performance standards of the network operator/service provider.
10 is self-explanatory (please also refer to IUR 2).
Encrypted Services
[IUR 3.3] If network operators/service providers initiate encoding, compression or encryption of telecommunications traffic, law enforcement agencies require the network operators/service providers to provide intercepted communications en clair.
3.3 is self-explanatory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glossary
Access The technical capability to interface with a communications facility, such as a communications line or switch, so that a law enforcement agency can acquire and monitor communications and call-associated data carried on the facility.
Authenticity Establishing the validity of a claimed identity of a user, device or another entity in an information or communications system.
Authorised person(s) A person authorised to perform duties related to lawful interception.
Availability The property that a communications system or service is useable on a timely basis in the required manner.
Call Any connection (fixed or temporary) capable of transferring information between two or more users of a telecommunications system.
Note: generally, the technology neutral term is "telecommunications".

Call-Associated Data Signalling information passing between a target service and the network or another user. Includes signalling information used to establish the call and to control its progress (e.g. call hold, call handover). Call-associated data also include information about the call that is available to the network operator/service provider (e.g. duration of connection).
Note: the generally applicable technology neutral term is "communications related data".

Data The representation of information in a manner suitable for communications, interpretation, storage or processing.
Interception As used here, the statutory-based action of providing access and delivery of a subject's telecommunications and call-associated data to law enforcement agencies.
Interception Interface The physical location within the network operator's/service provider's telecommunications facilities where access to the intercepted communications or call associated data is provided. The interception interface is not necessarily a single, fixed point.
Interception Order An order placed on a network operator/service provider for assisting a law enforcement agency with a lawfully authorised telecommunications interception.
Interception Subject Person or persons identified in the lawful authorisation and whose incoming and outgoing communications are to be intercepted and monitored.
Integrity The property that data or information has not been modified or altered in an unauthorised manner.
IUR International User Requirement – the common term for the International Requirements for Interception (Version 1.0) and the Council Resolution of 17 January 1995 on the lawful interception of telecommunications (published in the Official Journal of the European Communities C 329, 4.11.1996, p. 1).
Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) A service authorised by law to carry out telecommunications interceptions.
Note : This definition refers to LEAs' function only in terms of this document

Law Enforcement Monitoring Facility A law enforcement facility designated as the transmission destination for the intercepted communications and call-associated data of a particular interception subject. The site where monitoring/recording equipment is located.
Lawful Authorisation Permission granted to a law enforcement agency under certain conditions to intercept specified telecommunications. Typically this refers to an order or warrant issued by a legally authorised body.
Network Operator/Service Provider "Network operator" = the operator of a public telecommunications infrastructure which permits the conveyance of signals between defined network termination points by wire, by microwave, by optical means or by other electromagnetic means.
"Service provider" = the natural or legal person providing (a) public telecommunications service(s) the provision of which consists wholly or partly in the transmission and routing of signals on a telecommunications network.

Quality of Service The quality specification of a communications channel, system, virtual channel, computer-communications session, etc. Quality of service may be measured, for example, in terms of signal-to-noise ratio, bit error rate, message throughput rate or call blocking probability.
Reliability The probability that a system or service will perform in a satisfactory manner for a given period of time when used under specified operating conditions.
Roaming The ability of subscribers of mobile telecommunications services to place, maintain and receive calls when they are located outside their designated home service area.
Target Service A service associated with an interception subject and usually specified in a lawful authorisation for interception.
Telecommunications Any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo-electronic or photo-optical system.
Yakki Da
Kent
"The only difference between God and Adolf Hitler is that God is more proficient at genocide."
Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
http://watchtower.observer.org
2
Fun For The Paranoid!
by Kent in
1. jw
2. friends
[notices] .

from the federal register online via gpo access [wais.access.gpo.gov].

[docid:fr27jn01-56] .
Kent

[Federal Register: June 27, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 34177]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27jn01-56]
[[Page 34177]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
Defense Science Board
AGENCY: Department of Defense.
ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meeting date changes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On Monday, March 12, 2001 (66 FR 14359) the Department of
Defense announced closed meetings of the Defense Science Board (DSB)
Task Force on Intelligence Needs for Homeland Defense. These meetings
have been rescheduled from June 25-26, 2001, to June 26-27, 2001; and
from July 23-24, 2001, to July 24-25, 2001.
Both meetings will be held at Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson
Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA.
Dated: June 21, 2001.
L. M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-16030 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-M
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Federal Register: June 27, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 34177]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27jn01-57]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
Defense Science Board
AGENCY: Department of Defense.
ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meeting date change.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On Thursday, February 22, 2001 (66 FR 11158), the Department
of Defense announced a closed meeting of the Defense Science Board
(DSB) Task Force on Precision Targeting. This meeting has been
rescheduled from July 26-27, 2001 to July 25-26, 2001. The meeting will
be held at SAIC, 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA.
Dated: June 21, 2001.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-16031 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-M
Yakki Da
Kent
"The only difference between God and Adolf Hitler is that God is more proficient at genocide."
Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
http://watchtower.observer.org
7
Wake-Up Call for US Citizens!
by Kent in
1. jw
2. friends
this is g o o g l e's cache of http://kwtn.com/news/opinions/cooper,%20dennis%20reeves/1999/99-12-10-kwtn-getting_fired_for_having_an_opinion.html.. g o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.. the page may have changed since that time.

this is g o o g l e's cache of http://kwest.net/news/news/2000/00-02-18-kwtn-clayton_incident_is_not_about_clayton.html.. g o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.. the page may have changed since that time.

this is g o o g l e's cache of http://kwest.net/news/news/2000/00-06-30-kwtn-avael_doublespeakrevealedinpolicescandal.html.. g o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.. the page may have changed since that time.
Kent

27 June 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 22:32:56 -0400
To: [email protected]
From: Declan McCullagh < [email protected]>
Subject: Police arrest newspaper editor for criticizing Florida cops
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Police in Key West, Flordia have arrested a newspaper editor for printing an article that criticized an internal police investigation, according to an Associated Press report. This brutish action by police and prosecutors should be widely denounced.
As of this afternoon, the Key West newspaper's site at kwest.com was still up (I read what appears to be one of the articles in question at
http://kwest.net/~kwtn/local_news/01-06-15-KWTN-FDLE_Investigating_Police_Internal_Scandal.html).
But while the server is still alive -- it responds to ping requests -- connections to port 80 are now refused. Unfortunately, the article is no longer in my cache.
It looks like the editor, Dennis Cooper, is being prosecuted for allegedly violating a state law. Under Florida law, it's a crime to disclose information about a police investigation -- even if you're the person who had filed a complaint alleging police wrongdoing, as Cooper seems to have done.
You can find contact information for Key West officials here:
http://www.keywestcity.com/directory.html
http://www.keywestcity.com/depts/police/policetelephone.html
I've copied the mayor, the chief of police, and other officials. If they would care to reply, I would be happy to extend them the usual courtesy of distributing their response unedited.
If anyone puts up a mirror site with the article [see three articles by Cooper below], please let me know. And I urge you to write to the city officials copied above. (BTW I have verified that the below article did run on the AP wire.)
-Declan
---
From: Eric Cordian < [email protected]>
Subject: Journalist Arresting for Criticizing Cops
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
In today's news of the truly odd.
-----
KEY WEST, Fla. (AP) -- A newspaper editor and publisher was arrested for publishing an article alleging a cover-up in an internal police investigation he had filed an official complaint about, police records show.
Dennis Cooper, 66, editor of the weekly Key West The Newspaper, was arrested Friday and released two hours later on his own recognizance.
The affidavit for his arrest cites a Florida statute that makes it a misdemeanor for anyone involved in an internal police investigation to disclose information before it has been entered into public record.
Cooper has alleged a police lieutenant lied in court about a 1996 stop of a bicyclist, and that the Key West Police Department covered it up.
He filed a complaint last month with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement accusing an internal affairs investigator of falsifying information about his review of the incident.
[...]
---
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_StatuteSearch_String=&URL=Ch0112/SEC533.HTMTitle=->2000->Ch0112->Section%20533
>(4) Any person who is a participant in an internal investigation,
>including the complainant, the subject of the investigation, the
>investigator conducting the investigation, and any witnesses in the
>investigation, who willfully discloses any information obtained pursuant
>to the agency's investigation, including, but not limited to, the identity
>of the officer under investigation, the nature of the questions asked,
>information revealed, or documents furnished in connection with a
>confidential internal investigation of an agency, before such complaint,
>document, action, or proceeding becomes a public record as provided in
>this section commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as
>provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. However, this subsection does not
>limit a law enforcement or correctional officer's ability to gain access
>to information under paragraph (2)(a). Additionally, a sheriff, police
>chief, or other head of a law enforcement agency, or his or her designee,
>is not precluded by this section from acknowledging the existence of a
>complaint and the fact that an investigation is underway.
http://legal.firn.edu/justice/01law.PDF
>Unauthorized disclosure penalties: Section 112.533(4), F.S., makes it a
>first degree misdemeanor for any person who is a participant in an
>internal investigation to willfully disclose any information obtained
>pursuant to the agency's investigation before such information becomes a
>public record. However, the subsection "does not limit a law enforcement
>or correctional officer's ability to gain access to information under
>paragraph (2)(a)."92
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Thanks to Anonymous for the three articles.]
This is G o o g l e's cache of http://kwtn.com/news/opinions/cooper,%20dennis%20reeves/1999/99-12-10-KWTN-Getting_Fired_For_Having_An_Opinion.html.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time.
____________________________________
Key West The Newspaper - December 10, 1999
Getting Fired For Having An Opinion and Writing About It
by Dennis Reeves Cooper, Editor & Publisher
There are plenty of financial disadvantages to running the only newspaper in town without a rich backer. But there is one super-dooper major advantage: Nobody can fire me for having an opinion and writing about it! That wasn't the case for Key West Police Lt. Tom Chapp back in 1997; and it wasn't the case for Joe Pais last week.
On Jan. 10, 1997, an excerpt from a long letter from Lt. Chapp was published in Key West The Newspaper. The full text of that letter was later published in the Citizen. Chapp's letter was rambling and philosophical. But the excerpt that got him in trouble was his opinion that it was OK for Bahama Village residents to fire guns into the air on New Year's Eve because it was a "cultural thing".
Several fellow officers filed Internal Affairs (IA) complaints against Chapp. And City Manager Julio Avael, at that time in a full court press to build a case against then-Police Chief Ray Peterson sufficient to fire him or force his resignation or retirement, reprimanded Peterson for "allowing" Chapp to publish the letter.
Chapp was subsequently fired, not for writing the letter, but for causes that resulted from his letter-writing. He didn't show up for his IA hearings. He says he he was too ill to sit through multiple hearings— they were all scheduled on the same day. And he had a note from his doctor. Too bad, Avael said. You're outta here. Chapp is suing the City. The trial started Monday and will continue into next week.
Last week, former City Commissioner Joe Pais was also fired for having an opinion and writing about it. He was fired from a job at the Key West Art & Historical Society (KWAHS) that he had held for 11 years. Pais' opinion, published last Friday in his regular column in this newspaper, was that soft drink vending machines with large, bright, back-lit panels on the front should be banned from the historical district. A previous column on the same subject had resulted in a lighted machine being removed from the cemetery. Joe's opinion about those who place these machines around town was stronger and stated more colorfully than our's would have been on the same topic— but it was his opinion.
Why would the management of the KWAHS care one way or the other about Pais' opinion on soft drink machines? Well, it seems that the local Pepsi Cola distributor is a contributor to the KWAHS and, reportedly, applied some pressure to some people over there who, apparently, don't stand up to pressure very well. And Pais was fied the same day his column appeared.
But what makes this whole scenario so bizarre is that Pais had already announced that he was resigning to accept a prestigious job up in Tallahassee in early January as Statewide Supervisor of Museum Services for the State Division of Historical Resources. One of his duties will be to administer grants to museums around the state.
So we have to ask: Who's bright idea was it to fire Pais after he had already resigned-- and insult the guy who will be instrumental in determining what museums will get what grants? (Duh!) Was a single member of the KWAHS board consulted before this radical action was taken? We don't know the answer to those questions because, if you can believe this, the official position of the KWAHS is "no comment"!
We called and faxed the office of Attorney Susan Cardenas, the president of the KWAHS. But she was, apparently, hiding under her desk. Maybe we would have been more successful in getting her to the phone if we had told her secretary that we wanted to give the KWAHS some money. No comment indeed!
What could they have been thinking when the snap decision was made to fire Pais after he had already resigned? The answer is that they wern't thinking at all. Didn't it occur to anybody over there that this could blow up into a major scandal? In fact, the five-column, all-caps headline in another weekly newspaper yesterday read: "Scandal Rocks Art & Historical Society!" The man was already leaving town! Those involved in the decision to fire Pais-- and it was, reportedly, a small group of people— may have seriously damaged the image of the Society that many, including Pais, have worked so hard to build. Who would want to give money to an organization that is being managed by people with this kind of witless judgment?
Now, we know Joe Pais pretty well. His "Pais Report" columns have appeared on this page every week since Nov. 10, 1995. We doubt that he will be vindictive when considering future grant requests from the KWAHS— assuming that there's anybody over there that can write a grant request now that Pais is gone. He's far too classy to be vindictive. And far classier than the knee-jerk performance of KWAHS's management last Friday.
We'll miss Joe's thoughtful contributions to our paper every week. Although we often disagreed with his opinions, our philosophy has always been that a variety of voices make our product more interesting. Good luck, Joe!
SEE JOE PAIS' FAREWELL COLUMN ON THIS PAGE; AND TWO RELATED LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ON PAGES 6 AND 7.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is G o o g l e's cache of http://kwest.net/news/News/2000/00-02-18-KWTN-Clayton_Incident_Is_Not_About_Clayton.html.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time.
____________________________________
Key West The Newspaper - February 18, 2000
Why the "Clayton Incident" Is Not About Clayton
HERE'S A HISTORY LESSON FOR "CONSULTANT" CLAYTON. WOULD AVAEL PLOT TO DISCREDIT A CITY OFFICIAL? LET'S LOOK AT THE RECORD.
by Dennis Reeves Cooper
Did you catch the fawning interview with "motivational trainer" Paul Clayton in Solares Hill last week?
An editor's note ballyhooed the interview as Clayton's first public statement since his now-famous incident at the home of City Commissioner Tom Oosterhoudt last December. Clayton, as a City-paid consultant working directly for City Manager Julio Avael, reportedly warned Oosterhoudt that, unless he became more of a "team player", he would be isolated from City Staff and the other Commissioners and become a one-term Commissioner.
Key West The Newspaper was, apparently, the first to interview Clayton shortly after the incident. He told us that he went to see Oosterhoudt wearing both his Trust In Government Committee and Gay Liaison hats— hats that he's paid by the City to wear. After the incident blew into a scandal, however, he changed his story. He now says he went to see Oosterhoudt as a "private citizen"— although he did admit that he reported back to Avael about the meeting. Why would a "private citizen" report back to the City Manager?
One of the things we did learn from the Solares Hill interview is just how absolutely wonderful Paul Clayton is— at least according to Paul Clayton. He says that he conducts seminars all "around the country", teaching people how to "empower" themselves. He says he makes lots and lots of money and that his $27,800 contract with the City is "cheap."
"I can make in a day elsewhere what I make in a month on my contract with the City," he was quoted as saying. Yeah, right, Paul. That may be a good pick-up line in a bar, but it doesn't fly with hard-working Key Westers who are really pissed off that Julio Avael continues to allow you to dip into our tax coffers.
In the interview, probably much to Avael's chagrin, Clayton did admit that he has used his City seminars to get City employees to sign petition cards to help a local politician get on the ballot. This is an interesting admission, because Avael told the City Commission on Jan. 25 that he didn't know anything about it.
But Key West The Newspaper had informed Avael of the allegations, in writing, a week or so earlier. It would be hard to believe that Avael wouldn't ask Clayton about something like this, especially if he thought he might be questioned about it by the Commission. Surely Avael's policy is that City employees should not politic on City time or on City property. Right?
Here's what we think. Of course Avael asked Clayton about it. And when he learned that the allegations were true, he had to fib when Oosterhoudt asked him about it at the Commission meeting.
The City employee who anonymously reported the petition card allegation said he went along with Clayton's request to sign the card— even though he didn't know anything about the politician in question— because he didn't want Clayton to think he wasn't a "team player."
Clayton says he didn't bill the City for the time it took to pass out the cards, promote the candidate and collect the cards. That's good. If you believe it. But those employees sitting in that room were certainly on the City time clock. In essence, that time was stolen and used for something other than City business. But that's apparently okay with City Manager Julio Avael.
But as we have told you before, the Clayton Incident isn't really about Clayton. It's about Avael. Avael, Clayton and Solares Hill would like you to believe that the incident is a tiny tempest in a very small teapot. But it's not. In fact, we believe that it may have been part of an orchestrated effort by Avael to discredit Oosterhoudt— a known enemy of Avael on the Commission— and ensure that he becomes a one-term Commissioner.
Avael, of course, will publicly scoff at this suggestion. "I wouldn't do anything like that," he will say piously. But the fact is that he did do something like that— in 1997 when he systematically discredited former Police Chief Ray Peterson and, ultimately, forced one of the most popular police chiefs in the history of the City to retire! Virtually no one who was here to witness that outrage believes that Avael acted honorably.
Clayton says he "wasn't around" then— although he claims to have lived here for 13 years. But he still blindly defends what Avael did to Peterson.
If you've been in town since 1996, bear with us for a moment while we give Clayton a little history lesson. (Hey, Paul. Clip this and put it in your dossier on Avael.)
First of all, even though Avael won't admit it, most of us know that he had to agree in advance to get rid of Peterson in order to get the job of City Manager here. Mayor Dennis Wardlow blamed Peterson for calling in the FBI to investigate corruption in City government, an investigation that resulted in the Mayor being indicted on bribery charges.
Wardlow was subsequently acquitted, but then the State Ethics Commission nailed him on influence peddling charges. He was fined $12,900 and given a public reprimand.
We reported our suspicions about a possible pre-employment deal in June 1996, even before Avael moved into his new office at City Hall. In May 1997, another candidate for the City Manager job confirmed our suspicians when he told us that he was asked if he would fire Peterson if he got the job.
"When City Manager Felix Cooper announced that he would be retiring, I went to talk to the Mayor and some of the Commissioners," said former City engineering executive Paul Mitchell. "Mayor Wardlow asked me straight out if I would be willing to fire Chief Peterson if I got the job. I told him I would not feel comfortable firing him without cause.
"It was clear that firing Peterson was Wardlow's primary objective."
Former City Manager Felix Cooper also told us in April 1997 that Mayor Wardlow and others repeatedly "leaned" on him to find reasons to fire Peterson.
"I resisted that pressure because I thought Peterson was a fine Chief," Cooper said.
In any event, Clayton and other readers may be surprised to learn that Avael was not the Commission's first choice to replace Cooper. We reported here in May 1996 that Mayor Wardlow and Commissioners Harry Bethel and Percy Curry wanted to promote Assistant City Manager Paul Cates. Commissioners Jimmy Weekley, Sally Lewis and Carmen Turner were leaning toward Kathi Rice, Assistant City Manager up in Clearwater.
Commissioner Merili McCoy was the swing vote. She alone wanted Avael. And here's how she pulled it off:
When a vote was called to name Cates to the job, McCoy voted "no." That gave Cates only three votes, one short of victory.
Then McCoy quickly nominated Avael. Wardlow, Bethel and Curry had no intention of allowing Weekley to choose the next City Manager, so they were literally forced to go along with McCoy.
"At least he's a Conch," they rationalized. Avael is a Key West native and a graduate of Key West High School.
But Avael came with baggage. In January 1993, when he was County Administrator up in Lee County, County Commissioners gave him a choice: Get fired or take a demotion. He accepted the demotion.
After Avael was demoted, the Ft. Myers News-Press editorialized: "Now that two members of last year's special interest troika are out of office (County Commissioners), along with their hand-picked hatchetman (Avael), County government has a chance to move forward . . . Lee County's name has been dragged through the mud for too long now by public officials engaging in questionable dealings that benefited special interests."
In July 1996, three days before Avael officially took over as Key West City Manager, he swore to KWTN writer Mike Smith, "I'm no hatchetman!"
But just three months later, rumors began to circulate that Avael had offered Peterson a retirement deal he wouldn't be able to refuse. But if there was ever a deal, it quickly fell apart. Peterson said he had no plans to retire.
So Avael got busy. If he couldn't force Peterson to leave, he knew he would be in trouble with the Mayor and other Commissioners to whom he had given a get-Peterson commitment.
In early March 1997, Avael unveiled a hand-drawn chart he said illustrated some of the "administrative problems" he had observed in the Police Dept. Primarily, Avael seemed concerned about who reported to whom.
A few days later, however, Avael abruptly suspended Peterson with pay, pending an investigation of unnamed "problems" within the Police Dept.
Enter Tom Oosterhoudt.
"I was outraged when I saw this happening," Oosterhoudt said. "And it seemed that everybody I talked to was outraged. Ray Peterson was one of the best Chiefs we ever had. I couldn't just stand by and allow Avael to get away with this politically-motivated travesty."
Hundreds of citizens turned out at protest rallies organized by Oosterhoudt. Activists Ray and May Chote conducted a "thumbs-up, thumbs-down" campaign on Roosevelt Boulevard at the entrance to the island.
"By far, most people supported Chief Peterson," reported the Chotes.
On the other hand, the police union, the Police Benevolent Association, backed Avael. When we asked for a list of names of the cops who had voted to betray their Chief, we didn't get a response. This is the same PBA chapter that would soon be put on probation by the state organization for "checkbook irregularities." This is the same PBA that would endorse Michael Ritchie for the City Commission in 1999.
On April 10, 1997, Avael unveiled his now-infamous "Blue Book" of charges against Peterson. If it hadn't been such a serious matter, this amateurish and deceitful effort would have been laughable. Most of the charges had no merit at all. And those that may have had some substance certainly would not warrant the firing of a popular Police Chief with an excellent record.
Avael's desperate strategy was obvious. Charge Peterson with anything. Anything. Substance was of absolutely no consequence. It was classic in-your-face Bubbaism. Make the charges, have some kind of hearing, and fire the man. The deed would be done. And everybody would soon forget all about it.
How could Avael get away with this? Because he had the backing of the Mayor and three City Commissioners: Wardlow, Bethel, Curry and McCoy. They were forced to show their colors at a special Commission meeting on July 3, 1997. All four voted to support Avael if he wanted to demote Peterson.
Let's look at a few of the "charges" in Avael's Blue Book.
First of all, he cited the report by the so-called "Blue Ribbon Panel" that had taken a look at "problems" within the Police Dept. in 1995. Avael said that this report pointed to "managerial deficiencies" on the part of Peterson.
That was a lie. The major finding of that panel was that there was too much political interference in the Dept. by elected officials. And the cops were bitching about radio equipment.
"If they're claiming that officers who testified before that panel were complaining about Peterson, that's absolutely wrong," said former City Manager Cooper. "I sat through every one of those sessions. The big concern was communications equipment, not the Chief.
"So we bought new equipment and the Dept. now has a new communications room," he said.
Another "charge" blamed Peterson for "allowing" one of his officers to write a letter to the editor. We're not making this up.
Another charge was a whining protest by Police Capt. William McNeill that a reprimand he received from Peterson— after McNeill loudly and publicly cursed several of his officers— was "improper."
Another "charge" was that Peterson had written a "character reference" letter for a prominent gay businessman— a former Chamber of Commerce Man of the Year— accused of a "lewd" act. Everybody who was anybody in town had written similar letters. But Avael said the Chief of Police's letter was an example of "an attempt to gain popularity despite the character of the individual."
After an almost silly hearing conducted by a virtually clueless retired judge from Miami, it was Avael— not the judge— who ruled that Peterson had been found guilty.
If you were following this story back then, you probably remember the judge's bizarre "ruling": "If true, these charges would warrant dismissal." And the judge took his fee and got out of town as soon as possible.
Avael: "Close enough! Peterson is guilty!"
The City would now negotiate a settlement deal with Peterson and his attorney. This part would not go as well as Avael might have hoped.
Peterson's attorney was top-gun J. Allison DeFoor, former judge, former sheriff, former candidate for lieutenant governor. He whipped the City like a cur dog. Peterson retired at the full rank of Police Chief, with a sizable financial settlement and a pension. And— get this— a letter was placed in Peterson's personnel file that certified that all of those charges against him were "deemed unfounded"! Duh!
But Avael could have cared less about all of that. He didn't care what the settlement cost the City. And he didn't even care that he had to admit that all of those Blue Book charges were just a bunch of baloney. (Heck, we all knew that all along, didn't we?)
All he cared about was that he had accomplished the dirty work that he had promised he would accomplish. He had told them in advance that he would get rid of Peterson if they would make him City Manager. Done deal.
So, Julio, don't you— or your hired apologist— dare try to tell people in this town that you wouldn't stoop to organizing a back-room plot to try to get rid of Tom Oosterhoudt. Your record is clear.
Last year, Tom Oosterhoudt ran for City Commission as an anti-corruption, quality-of-life candidate. Chief Peterson came down from his home in Jupiter to walk door-to-door with the him.
"It was like campaigning with a movie star," Oosterhoudt said. "He still has tremendous support here. Everybody knows that he was terribly wronged."
Tom won by a landslide over a slate of formidable opponents.
Toward the end of last week's interview in Solares Hill, Clayton made a telling statement that reveals his lack of understanding about Key West politics: "I think the whole problem with him (Oosterhoudt) is that he hasn't made the transition from activist to Commissioner."
Paul, in this town, that's a plus, not a minus. Many of the voters voted for Oosterhoudt because he had the courage to stand up for Peterson against the forces of evil. The reason we liked him is because he's an activist. Why, then would we want him to change once he's in office?
If the Clayton Incident was part of a scheme to "get" Oosterhoudt, it blew up in the schemers' faces. Oosterhoudt is probably more popular now than he was when he was elected. If he ran for reelection tomorrow, it is likely that his margin of victory would be greater than it was in November.
Meanwhile, we would speculate that neither Avael nor Clayton could get elected to anything here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is G o o g l e's cache of http://kwest.net/news/News/2000/00-06-30-KWTN-Avael_DoublespeakRevealedInPoliceScandal.html.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time.
____________________________________
Key West The Newspaper - June 30, 2000
Avael Doublespeak Revealed In New Police Department Scandal
WHEN APPROVING FORTUNE'S PROMOTION TO POLICE CAPTAIN, BOTH DILLON AND AVAEL REPORTEDLY KNEW ABOUT HIS SEXUAL AFFAIR WITH A 17-YEAR-OLD BOY
by Dennis Reeves Cooper
If you've been around town for several years, you remember City Manager Julio Avael's vicious and embarrassing vendetta against then-Police Chief Ray Peterson.
Among the litany of allegations against Peterson in Avael's now-famous "Blue Book" was a charge that Peterson had sent a letter to a judge asking for leniency for a prominent citizen who had pled "no contest" to a charge of attempting a lewd and lascivious act involving a child at a school bus stop.
According to Avael, "This is an example of Mr. Peterson's . . . attempt to gain popularity despite the character of the individual." He held up this "charge" as one reason Peterson should be fired as Police Chief.
But last year, when it was time to fill an opening for captain within the Key West Police Department (KWPD), Avael and Police Chief Dillon selected Thomas "Bill" Fortune, an officer who had previously lost his job as a Monroe County Sheriff's Deputy in 1985 when it was learned that he had had a sexual "affair" with a 17-year-old boy.
Dillon told Key West The Newspaper that both he and Avael knew about Fortune's past when they approved his promotion.
Presumably they both also knew that Fortune had falsified his application when he applied for a job with the Key West Police Dept., representing that he had never been discharged or forced to resign because of misconduct or unsatisfactory service.
On March 5, 1985, Sheriff Billy Freeman gave Fortune the choice of resigning or being fired from his job as a Deputy Sheriff.
"It has become apparent that you do not meet the standards of efficiency, morale and reputation required . . . for the responsible position of Deputy Sheriff with this department," wrote Undersheriff Lawrence Meggs in a letter to Fortune.
Fortune's resignation letter was short and to the point: "I hereby submit my resignation effective March 5, 1985."
The forced resignation came one day after Sheriff's Dept. Inspector Mike Young reported the results of his internal affairs criminal investigation. The report concluded that Fortune had consensual sex with a 17-year-old male high school student on as many as four occasions. On one occasion, Fortune and the boy reportedly spent a weekend together.
The young man had been a participant in the Sheriff's Cadet Program.
On March 6, 1985— the day after he had resigned from the Sheriff's Dept.— Fortune applied for a job with the KWPD, representing that he had left the Sheriff's Dept. because of a "personality conflict." He answered "no" to the question, "Have you ever been discharged or forced to resign because of misconduct or unsatisfactory service?"
Apparently, KWPD officials conducted no background check and Fortune was hired.
In 1991, somebody blew the whistle on Fortune concerning the falsification of his application. There was an internal investigation— and he was given a 10-day suspension.
Fortune's "secret" has been rumored around the Police Dept. for months, but it has been difficult to investigate.
When Fortune was first promoted to captain, a source inside the Police Dept. speculated that it was because "Avael had something on him. He can control Fortune." But our source couldn't provide any specifics.
Early this year, we heard the rumor that Fortune had been involved in "some sort of child abuse maybe 10 years ago."
We called the local office of the State Dept. of Children & Families (DCF) and asked who we might contact to investigate child abuse allegations concerning "a high-ranking police officer." We never heard from anybody at the DCF— but we heard from Chief Dillon that same day.
He told us that there was, indeed, something in Fortune's past that he wasn't proud of— but that he had gotten his life together and that "he is a fine police officer." But Dillon refused to provide specific information.
He also asked us to kill any story we might be planning. But we didn't have a story planned. We didn't have enough information.
Dillon also refused to tell us who at the DCF tipped him off that we were sniffing around. We do know, however, that RaiEtte Avael, the City Manager's wife, is one of the managers there.
When we checked with the Sheriff's Dept., we were told that most of Fortune's records had been purged. But we did learn that an internal investigation had "sustained" an allegation that Fortune had "sexual activity with a juvenile" and that he had lost his job because of it.
Then we wrote to the Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement's Criminal Justice Professionalism Program. And we thought for awhile that our request for information had disappeared into that governmental black hole in Tallahassee. But not so.
This week, we received more than 200 pages of documents which provided detailed— very detailed— information of Capt. Fortune's ill-fated "affair," the investigation that led to his departure from the Sheriff's Dept., and the subsequent KWPD internal investigation into allegations that he falsified his employment application.
We have no reason to believe that Capt. Fortune is not a good police officer or that he is doing anything less than an excellent job as one of two captains on the force. The story here is not Fortune. It's Avael's demagoguery and double-speak.
On one hand, Avael argued that Peterson should be removed as Chief of Police— certainly a radical action— because he, along with many other civic, political and business leaders, appealed for leniency for a popular local figure who was in trouble for allegedly hitting on a young boy. Avael gave us all the impression that he was terribly offended and revolted by Peterson's odious and unsavory act.
Then, Avael does a major flip-flop. He actively participated in the promotion— to one of the highest-ranking positions in the Police Dept.— of a man he reportedly knew had had a sexual relationship with a male juvenile.
And, on top of that, Avael surely knew that Fortune had falsified his employment records in order to get his job with the KWPD in the first place. That information is— or should be— in Fortune's personnel file.
So . . . do you think Avael talks out of both sides of his mouth, or what?
EDITOR'S NOTE: Both Chief Dillon and City Manager Avael have been aware for months that we've been researching this story. And we know that there has been at least one "damage control" meeting involving Dillon, Avael and others.
Earlier this week, we informed both Dillon and Avael that we now had the information from the FDLE. We even included Mike Young's very-detailed internal investigation report. And we asked for comments.
On Wednesday, we informed Police Dept. spokeswoman Cynthia Edwards that we planned to go with the story this week— and we again asked for comments.
Yakki Da
Kent
"The only difference between God and Adolf Hitler is that God is more proficient at genocide."
Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
http://watchtower.observer.org
2
Watchtower's Brothers In Arms Threatens Websites
by Kent in
1. jw
2. friends
date: thu, 28 jun 2001 16:09:18 -0500. from: ezola < [email protected]>.

to: john young < [email protected]>.

subject: dmca and church of l. ron hubbard .
Kent

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 16:09:18 -0500
From: ezola < [email protected]>
To: John Young < [email protected]>
Subject: DMCA and Church of L. Ron Hubbard
From: < [email protected]>
To: < [email protected]>
Cc: < [email protected]>; < [email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 3:09 PM
Subject: Notice of Copyright Infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Dear Gentlepersons:
Our office represents L. Ron Hubbard Library, the exclusive licensee of the copyrights to certain photographs of Mr. L. Ron Hubbard. Additionally, our office also represents Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), the owner of the federally registered trademark and service mark "L. RON HUBBARD". The mark "L. RON HUBBARD" is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under registration number, 1,821,751, a copy of which is attached. We also represent the Church of Scientology International ("CSI"), which is the licensee of the "L. Ron Hubbard" trademark.
Please be advised that one of Town Square Internet's subscribers, Laissez Faire City, has placed one of the L. Ron Hubbard Library's copyrighted photographs on his home page on your web site without the authorization of our client. This photograph is registered with the United States Copyright office under TX 441 079, a copy of which is attached hereto. He has also placed RTC's federally registered trademark, L. RON HUBBARD above this photograph. The copyrighted work and trademark can be found under the following URL:
http://www.zolatimes.com/JparArt/hubbard.html
Our clients have obtained numerous permanent injunctions concerning Internet infringements of other copyrighted works. For instance, in May 1998, a jury in the United States District Court in San Jose, California assessed damages in the amount of $75,000 against a Mr. Henson for copyright infringement on the Internet. Mr. Henson was also permanently enjoined by the court against further infringements. A United States District Court in the state of Virginia granted judgment for damages, costs, and a permanent injunction related to similar copyright infringement. Permanent injunctions have also been entered in three additional U.S. cases.
Similar results have been reached in Europe. On September 14, 1998, a Swedish court enjoined a defendant who engaged in similar infringements, in addition to finding that his actions in placing our client's copyrighted works on the Internet violated the owner's rights under Swedish copyright law. He was also fined for his illegal actions and ordered to pay $161,000 in litigation costs. On June 9, 1999, a Dutch court found an individual and numerous Internet service providers had engaged in copyright infringement by posting, or hosting, our clients' copyrighted works on their web sites. The court ruled that the service providers must remove such postings as soon as they are notified of them, subject to a penalty of $2,500 for each day on which they do not comply.
Moreover, the reproduction of a photograph in its entirety constitutes copyright infringement. See Rogers v. Koons, 751 F.Supp. 474, 478 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) aff'd, 960 F.2d 301 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 934 (1992).
Likewise, your subscriber's use of RTC's federally registered trademark, L. RON HUBBARD, has caused his name/web page to be falsely associated with our client's registered mark as owner and creates a likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of this web page in violation of United States state and federal law, including the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. . 1125(a), various state and federal laws and international law.
Additionally, the federally registered trademark, L. Ron Hubbard, is famous, distinctive and unique. The use of this mark in this manner dilutes the distinctiveness of the mark in violation of the federal trademark antidilution statute, 15 U.S.C. . 1125(c) and California's antidilution statute. See, Archdiocese of St. Louis v. Internet Entertainment Group, Inc., 34 F.Supp.2d 1145 (E.D. Mo. 1999); Mattel, Inc. v. Internet Dimensions, Inc., 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1620 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Deere & Co. v. MTD Products, Inc., 41 F.3d 39, 43 (2nd Cir. 1994).
This subscriber's actions in placing our clients' copyrighted work and federally registered trademark on his web page violates United States copyright and trademark law. Accordingly, we request that this work and the trademark be removed immediately.
I have a good faith belief, and in fact know for certain, that the posting of this work by your subscriber on their web page was not authorized by my client, any agent of my client, or the law.
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is accurate and that I am authorized to act on behalf of the L. Ron Hubbard Library in this matter.
Sincerely,
Ava Paquette
Moxon & Kobrin
3055 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 900
Los Angeles, California 90010
Tel: (213) 487-4468
Fax: (213) 487-5385
Yakki Da
Kent
"The only difference between God and Adolf Hitler is that God is more proficient at genocide."
Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
http://watchtower.observer.org
5
CRUMBLING WALLS OF THE WATCHTOWER
by Kent in
1. jw
2. friends
i found it on this webpage:.

http://www.theawaregroup.com/tab%20articles/wtchupdate.htm.

crumbling walls of the watchtower.
Kent

Does anyone know anything about this? I found it on this webpage:
http://www.theawaregroup.com/tab%20articles/wtchupdate.htm
CRUMBLING WALLS OF THE WATCHTOWER
JACKSON COUNTY UPDATE
Judges Loren L. Sawyer, Rebecca Orf, G. Phillip Arnold caught Filing False Secret Judgments Against Imprisoned and Helpless Unrepresented Trustees and Beneficiaries. Ongoing fraud and corruption in Jackson County, Oregon
By ABVA Group Trust Int.
Examination of the Circuit Court of Jackson County case records and office of the County Recorder, Kathleen Becket, Debtors to ABVA Group Trust International for over $24,000,000.00 reveals that:
1. A Deed was forged by Penny Page of Napa, California who, as impersonating ABVA Trust and Alvin and Jacqueline Hansen on August 23, 1995 against their marital home in title to ABVA.
2. Alvin Hansen was kidnapped for 13 months on September 11, 1995 as fraudulent, suits without service, and judgments were entered against ABVA, Alvin & Jacqueline Hansen for divorce, a secret guardianship over him, and in October 24, 1996 by then Judge Sawyer and Attorney Richard Thierolf.
3. A secret default judgment was entered against a California beneficiary of ABVA, Kenneth Sherman by Judge Sawyer and Richard Thierolf on the same day (Oct. 24, 1996) after duping him to sign a deed being no party to the jurisdiction-less sham suits to be recorded deceiving him to believe he was responsible for the forged deed filed by Penny Page, Thierolf and Sawyer financed and influenced by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society Inc.
4. Secret guardianship by Judge Sawyer in April 1989 forged power of attorney and IRS tax liens for $400,000.00 against the marriage and trust of Alvin & Jacqueline Hansen, ABVA, branding him "insane!"
5. Theft of all the Hansen family property was effected by these crimes of Judge Sawyer, the Watchtower and their lawyers Jacobson, Jewett, Thierolf, and Dickey, Deatherage and Leo A. Hoad, Jr.
To discredit the judgment and consensual (UCC Contract) in Delaware in August 1993, these Jackson county Officials (Judges Loren L. Sawyer, Rebecca Orf, G. Phillip Arnold) acted in conspiracy with Ms. Page, Bank of America, Chubb Insurance and the U.S. Department of Justice to falsify deeds and judgments of innocent victims of the Trust to cunningly evade the insurmountable debt they agreed to pay.
ABVA Trust Attorney Mr. Soll on December 17, 1998, served a writ of garnishment on all the banks by and through Evergreen Federal Savings and collected $549,000.00. Mr. Soll, Alvin Hansen and Mr. Sherman are voiding the entire fraudulent record, including the deed that Mr. Sherman was duped into signing and the vengeful, vicious, contempt default judgment secretly entered against him.
Judges Sawyer, Orf, & G. Phillip Arnold were served (reserved) with process out of the Superior Court of San Francisco, State ex rel Stull, ABVA Trust, et al, Civil Case No. 968484, along with THE WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY INC., DARALENE HANSEN, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, GREGORY SKOOG, POSTMASTER JIM FOCAULT, EADS FURNITURE, MEDFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT, JACKSON COUNTY SHERIFF, RICHARD THIEROLF, U.S. BANK, WELLS FARGO, & EVERGREEN FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK and others, in October, November, December of 1998 and January and February of 1999, by process server and levying officer, QUALITY PROCESS SERVING, and 'they' continue to hold in contempt and ignore the lawful process.
Judgment by default for non appearance are being processed and entered by the clerk as required by law and writs of Re-plevin (return of stolen assets) and Execution, for money judgments, are being issued as required by law.
Stay tuned... cause things are looking up
Yakki Da
Kent
"The only difference between God and Adolf Hitler is that God is more proficient at genocide."
Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
http://watchtower.observer.org
18
Funny grammatical errors by foreigners......
by LDH in
1. jw
2. friends
as you may know, i will laugh at you if you confuse:.

hear and here.

too and to.. i will also, laugh at syntax errors.
Kent

When a Norwegian goes to a restaurant ordering an underdone steak, or a rare steak, we use a word that if translated to Norwegian-English would be "Bloody".
So, this Norwegian came to a restaurant in New York and oredered a "Bloody Beef" - and the waiter looked at him for a while, then said:
Would you like some fuckin' potatoes as well?
Yakki Da
Kent
"The only difference between God and Adolf Hitler is that God is more proficient at genocide."
Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
http://watchtower.observer.org
29
Bericht 1034
by Sue in
1. jw
2. friends
how many have read the report 1034 from nazi germany?.

this was hitlers thought that jw's were preaching.

the bible and not giving in to him as the rc's and other .
Kent

I have to find the document, but German Watchtowers printed lots of messages from the "brothers by the front" some time in history. I just need to find the material. During The Great War this was common.
Yakki Da
Kent
"The only difference between God and Adolf Hitler is that God is more proficient at genocide."
Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
http://watchtower.observer.org