Land of the free....

[ride your bike]

God bless America

http://www.raisethefist.com/news.cgi?artical=wire/-----74814smallsherm.gifI
MG.article


SHERMAN AUSTIN SENTENCED TO ONE YEAR IN FEDERAL PRISON

Sherman Austin, webmaster of RaisetheFist.com, was sentenced today, August
4, 2003, to one year in federal prison, with three years of probation.
Judge Wilson shocked the courtroom when he went against the recommendation
of not only the prosecution, but the FBI and the Justice Department, who
had asked that Austin be sentenced to 4 months in prison, and 4 months in a
half-way house, with 3 years of probation.

Austin's probation stipulates, among other things, that (1) he cannot
possess or access a computer of any kind without prior approval of his
probation officer, (2) if his probation officer gives permission, the
equipment is subject to monitoring and is subject to search and seizure at
any time, without notice, (3) he cannot alter any of the software or
hardware on any computer he uses, (4) he must surrender his phone, DSL,
electric, and satellite bills, (5) he cannot associate with any person or
group that seeks to change the government in any way (be that
environmental, social justice, political, economic, etc.), and (6) he must
pay over $2,000 in fines and restitution. Austin must surrender himself to
the Federal Bureau of Prisons by September 3, 2003.

To contact sherman, email

FROM SHERMAN AUSTIN:

On Jan 24, 2002 , my home was surrounded and raided by approximately 25
heavily armed FBI and Secret Service agents in one of the governments first
attempts to exercise the new US Patriot Act. I was interrogated for several
hours while they ransacked my room and they seized a network of computers
which I used to run my web site raisethefist.com. They also seized protest
signs, and political literature. Their excuse was a protest guide (which I
didn't author) that was posted to my site which a small portion contained
information on explosives. The FBI had been monitoring the site long before
this was ever posted, and long before Sept 11. The "explosives information"
on my site (again which I didn't author) doesn't compare to what you an
find on any other web sites such as howthingswork.com, Loompanics.com,
Bombshock.com, Totse.com, Amazon.com, or the many neo nazi web sites which
cover everything from assassinations, explosives, fraud and firearms. It's
obvious a web surfer interested in making a bomb or taking part in other
extra-illegal activities would not have to rely on Raisethefist.com. So how
could the "bomb making information" on raisethefist.com be a concern to
authorities? It wasn't a concern, it was simply used an excuse to exercise
the new Patriot Act and take down the site. And that's what they did when
federal agents spent 5-6 hours interrogating me while they disassembled
each computer one by one , mirrored each hard drive, then loaded everything
into a big white truck. During this whole process I was told I wasn't going
to be arrested, and that I could even leave if I wanted to. Once the agents
finished packing everything up, Special Agent John I. Pi, who was
conducting the investigation and raid said that I had crossed a line, and
as long as I got back on the other side of that line I'd be okay.

A week later despite what happened I still continued with my plans to
attend the demonstration against the World Economic Forum in NY. As I was
waiting for the march to begin, a swarm of NYPD officers rushed straight at
me and scooped up about 26 people, one of which was me. We sat on a bus for
7 hours before being taken to Brooklyn Navy Yard Jail. I was there for
about 30 hours before I was taken out of my cell and put into a backroom in
handcuffs and interrogated once again by the FBI and Secret Service for
several hours. They asked me questions such as if I was a terrorist or
involved in any terrorist organizations. During the interrogation I noticed
more and more agents walking through the room. I was told I wouldn't leave
custody unless they searched my car. I said I had nothing to hide and simpl
y wanted to go home. Stressed and aggravated, I signed over my keys. A few
minutes later I was driven to the court and released. As I was waiting for
someone to pick me up, about 5 FBI agents entered the court and said I was
arrested for "distribution of information related to explosives over the
internet". One of the agents grabbed my neck and told me to shut the ****
up while I tried to tell one of the legal observers I was being arrested. I
was hurried out of the court house into a black SUV where I was driven to a
federal building. I was then taken to lower Manhattan MCC maximum security
24 hour lockdown federal jail facility. At my bail hearing the FBI called
me a "man on a mission" and said I drove 3,000 miles to carry out my
alleged "plot". The judge said I was a "threat to the community" and denied
me bail, and I was to be extradited back to California to face my charges.
After 11 days I was shackled and taken to an airforce base where federal
inmates are boarded onto planes surrounded by guards with M16's and shot
guns, like prisoners of war, and flown to a federal jail "hub" in Oklahoma.
Once I got there, I learned the next day that the prosecutors decided not
to file an indictment. I was released after spending 13 days in custody.
When I got back to Los Angeles I put raisethefist.com back up almost
immediately. I continued my political organizing within the community, as
well as my work with Raise the Fist which developed into a Direct Action
Network with chapters setup around the world. 6 months later prosecutors
contacted my lawyer and said they found nothing to prosecute me for on my
computers, but didn't want to "let me off the hook". They offered me a
pre-indictment binding plea agreement which was initially 1 month in jail,
and 5 months in a "community corrections facility". I rejected the plea at
first, wanting to go to trial until we discovered the case was eligible for
a terrorism enhancement, which could have added 20 years to my sentence.

I therefore decided to enter a plea. I played months of legal limbo until I
finally expected to get sentenced to 4 months in jail and 4 months in a
community corrections facility based on the final pre-sentencing report
written by the USPO. The judge rejected the 4 months saying what kind of an
example would it set for "future revolutionaries" wanting to act in the
same manner. He stated he wanted to give me at least 8-10 months but first
wanted the opinion of the Justice Department and the Director of the FBI in
Washington, DC (Robert Muller). My sentencing was rescheduled several times
until August 4th. I was convicted for felony; distribution of information
related to explosives with intent, and sentenced to 1 year in federal
prison with 3 years supervised release.

Distribution of information related to explosives is not illegal.. What's
illegal is the INTENT part. They have to prove you have intent to use the
information to cause further crime of violence .. and how do they prove
intent? I think Bush made it clear when he said "you're either with me or
against me".

Remember, fascism and a police state doesn't come all at once, it comes
piece by piece. How far will we allow it go until we are all locked up in
concentration camps.

If we don't take matters into our own hands and do something about this
now, then we are already prisoners of war.

Raisethefist.com is not shutting down, and the RTF Direct Action Network
will continue to grow and remain active. A 1 year sentence is not the end
of this. It's just the begining.

[Zoot Katz]

Sun, 10 Aug 2003 06:21:42 GMT,
>, "ride your bike"
> wrote:

>If we don't take matters into our own hands and do something about this
>now, then we are already prisoners of war.

This is a *news* group.
That's old.

Where you been?
--
zk

[Hunrobe]

The mantra of extremists:

"The government *always* lies to you."
"The media *always* lies to you."
"Big corporations *always* lie to you."

"But you can take as gospel *everything* anyone convicted of a crime says."

[Zoot Katz]

10 Aug 2003 07:55:36 GMT,
>,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

>The mantra of extremists:
>
>"The government *always* lies to you."
>"The media *always* lies to you."
>"Big corporations *always* lie to you."
>
>"But you can take as gospel *everything* anyone convicted of a crime says."
>
That does it! From now on I'm only believing cops and priests.
--
zk

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes

"Hunrobe" <
> The mantra of extremists:
>
> "The government *always* lies to you."
> "The media *always* lies to you."
> "Big corporations *always* lie to you."
>
> "But you can take as gospel *everything* anyone convicted of a crime
says."
>

You forgot this one: "You can take as gospel anything a person says when he
RECANTS his confession!"
and this one: "You can take as gospel anything the family of the confessed
or convicted person says."

Pat in TX

[Jym Dyer]

> "But you can take as gospel *everything* anyone convicted
> of a crime says."

=v= Red herring. I've followed this case and found little
evidence for the government's allegations, though. The
case for the prosecution hinged on emotional histronics and
name-calling. A rational observer would not have found the
defendant proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which
is supposed to be the standard complied to.
<_Jym_>

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes

...
> > "But you can take as gospel *everything* anyone convicted
> > of a crime says."
>
> =v= Red herring. I've followed this case and found little
> evidence for the government's allegations, though. The
> case for the prosecution hinged on emotional histronics and
> name-calling. A rational observer would not have found the
> defendant proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which
> is supposed to be the standard complied to.
> <_Jym_>

Well, sure, unless the defendant pleads guilty to something, which he
apparently did. It looks as if there wasn't a trial to decide if he was
"guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" because he pled guilty before the trial.
We can't then say, "well he isn't guilty because he didn't have a trial."

Pat in TX

[Boyd Speerschneider]

(Hunrobe) wrote in news:20030810035536.20330.00002044@mb-
m29.aol.com:

> The mantra of extremists:
>
> "The government *always* lies to you."
> "The media *always* lies to you."
> "Big corporations *always* lie to you."
>
> "But you can take as gospel *everything* anyone convicted of a crime says."

The mantra of sheep:

"The government *never* lies to you."
"The media *never* lies to you."
"Big corporations *never* lie to you."

I guess my point is a little skepticism isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Back to the topic.
I feel sorry for the guy, but he gave the Feds the excuse the were looking
for. He should have never had that stuff on his site and then they wouldn't
have a leg to stand on.

- Boyd S.

[Hunrobe]

>Boyd Speerschneider

wrote:

>The mantra of sheep:
>
>"The government *never* lies to you."
>"The media *never* lies to you."
>"Big corporations *never* lie to you."
>
>I guess my point is a little skepticism isn't necessarily a bad thing.

---snip---

Who said skepticism is bad? Let's just apply some skepticism when we view the
post-incarceration statements of someone who's imprisoned because they *pled
guilty*, fair enough?

>Back to the topic.
>I feel sorry for the guy, but he gave the Feds the excuse the were looking
>for. He should have never had that stuff on his site and then they wouldn't
>have a leg to stand on.
>
>- Boyd S.

If you want to feel sorry for him be my guest, just reread your last sentence
and think about what you're saying.
"He should have never had that stuff on his site..." equals, "He should not
have broken the law."
".... (T)hen they wouldn't have a leg to stand on." equals, "He would not have
been arrested."
That seems pretty obvious to me. I just don't see how it qualifies as a reason
to feel sorry for him.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Chalo]

(Hunrobe) wrote:

> If you want to feel sorry for him be my guest, just reread your last sentence
> and think about what you're saying.
> "He should have never had that stuff on his site..." equals, "He should not
> have broken the law."
> ".... (T)hen they wouldn't have a leg to stand on." equals, "He would not have
> been arrested."
> That seems pretty obvious to me. I just don't see how it qualifies as a reason
> to feel sorry for him.

The proportionality of the punishment to the confessed "crime" is
totally deranged in this case, especially since the "law" being
violated is itself in violation of higher constitutional principles.

It would be just if apologists for this sort of political repression
and thuggery faced incarceration for the crime of speaking *their*
convictions.

This sort of tyranny begets its own undoing, by and by.

Chalo Colina

[Pat]

x-no-archive:yes

> > If you want to feel sorry for him be my guest, just reread your last
sentence
> > and think about what you're saying.
> > "He should have never had that stuff on his site..." equals, "He should
not
> > have broken the law."
> > ".... (T)hen they wouldn't have a leg to stand on." equals, "He would
not have
> > been arrested."
> > That seems pretty obvious to me. I just don't see how it qualifies as a
reason
> > to feel sorry for him.
>
> The proportionality of the punishment to the confessed "crime" is
> totally deranged in this case, especially since the "law" being
> violated is itself in violation of higher constitutional principles.
>
> It would be just if apologists for this sort of political repression
> and thuggery faced incarceration for the crime of speaking *their*
> convictions.
>
> This sort of tyranny begets its own undoing, by and by.
>
> Chalo Colina

You see, though, all we have right now is your opinion of the
proportionality of the punishment to the crime. How do we know your opinion
isn't "totally deranged"? How do we even know if you're not the defendant?
You just don't seem to be unbiased....

Pat in TX

[Jym Dyer]

> ... because he pled guilty before the trial.

=v= A guilty plea can reflect many things. Most frequently,
it reflects the quality of the legal representation one can
afford. Sometimes it reflects actual guilt, but it is by no
means a reliable indicator.
<_Jym_>

[Rick Onanian]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 02:31:15 GMT, Boyd Speerschneider
> wrote:
> I guess my point is a little skepticism isn't necessarily a bad thing.

A LOT of skepticism is a good thing. It doesn't matter
if it came from the government, or a criminal, or whatever.
You should never just accept what is fed to your mind.
Always process it yourself before you use it.

> Back to the topic.
> I feel sorry for the guy, but he gave the Feds the excuse the were
> looking for. He should have never had that stuff on his site and then
> they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

How is THAT on topic? On subject, yes. On topic...gah.

Could be worse. I keep seeing messages that make me want
to post a long political rant, so I write it out, then
remember that I'm on a bicycling newsfroup, and cancel
the message before I send it. I wish I would just not
bother...it sure is taking a lot of my time tonight.

> - Boyd S.
--
Rick Onanian

[Chalo]

(Hunrobe) wrote:

> (Chalo)
>
> wrote in part:
>
> >It would be just if apologists for this sort of political repression
> >and thuggery faced incarceration for the crime of speaking *their*
> >convictions.
>
> Chalo, you really should familiarize yourself with what's being discussed
> before going off half-cocked like this. While he did/does espouse
> anti-government views on his website, the "victim" of this particular
> "thuggery" wasn't expressing any political beliefs when he posted detailed
> instructions there on how to produce explosives.

If you think Sherman Austin is not being singled out for persecution
because of his political leanings, you're fooling yourself.

> He's claiming now that the
> information he published was "no worse than the information published on other
> sites". That's not an argument *against* his prosecution. It's an argument
> *for* the prosecution of all those others.

Information is not govt property, Bob. If he had actual valuable
information about explosives on his website, then his actions were
protected by both the 1st and 2nd Amendments and not just the 1st.

We can criminalize acts, no problem. When we criminalize possession
of certain things, particularly things that are routinely used by the
authorities, we're on shaky ground from an ethical and constitutional
standpoint. But when disseminating information becomes criminal, we
are all in dire trouble. It's not like the bad guys on both sides of
any conflict don't already have bombs. This "Patriot" bull**** is
only a pretext for banning speech and trampling other closely guarded
rights of citizenship.

I ask you what kind of society is it we inhabit where the police use
explosives as a tool in civil disputes, yet posting *information*
about explosives can land you in prison? One with a pretty flawed
understanding of fundamental rights, I say.

> What he did different only in degree from a situation where someone gained
> access to information your daily habits and schedule, your home address, your
> family members' addresses, and your workplace location and then published that
> information on a website named www.wehatechalosoletskillhim.com.

But it is different to such a great degree that to criminalize what
Sherman Austin is accused of is to violate the letter of the document
which grants the govt its power.

Chalo Colina

[Appkiller]

<snip>
> What he did different only in degree from a situation where someone gained
> access to information your daily habits and schedule, your home address, your
> family members' addresses, and your workplace location and then published that
> information on a website named www.wehatechalosoletskillhim.com.
>
> I doubt you'd be quite so quick in that situation to claim that the publication
> of that information is protected speech.
<snip>

The pro-life crazies of the world are protected when they publish the
names, phone numbers and addresses (in addition to all the other
information listed above) of abortion providers on the internet.

The Supreme Court supports their right to enable terrorists in that
fashion as free speech, so why the hell can't this guy support his own
favorite bomb ******* in his own way? Not that I support either group
of crazy *******s but really, how 'bout a little consistency?

More bull**** from our puppet president and the military-industrial
complex who pull the strings.

App, who's had just about enough of the current administration and
longs for the days of a scandal that involves lies about marital
infidelity, rather than lies that already cost us hundreds of American
lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, with more casualties and
more billions more every week.

[Hunrobe]

(Chalo)

wrote:

>If you think Sherman Austin is not being singled out for persecution
>because of his political leanings, you're fooling yourself.

---snip---

He isn't being persecuted. He was *prosecuted* for breaking the law. Should we
only prosecute those offenders that are members of the majority? If the law was
written so that it only applied to members of a political, social, or racial
minority then you could accurately claim persecution. It isn't so you can't.

>> He's claiming now that the
>> information he published was "no worse than the information published on
>other
>> sites". That's not an argument *against* his prosecution. It's an argument
>> *for* the prosecution of all those others.
>
>Information is not govt property, Bob.

---snip---

No one is claiming it is. The foremost duty of any government is to protect its
citizens from harm that individual citizens can't protect themselves from. I'd
say that an individual citizen is unable to protect himself against a bomb,
wouldn't you?

>If he had actual valuable
>information about explosives on his website, then his actions were
>protected by both the 1st and 2nd Amendments and not just the 1st.
>We can criminalize acts, no problem. When we criminalize possession
>of certain things, particularly things that are routinely used by the
>authorities, we're on shaky ground from an ethical and constitutional
>standpoint.

---snip---

Your legalistic argument is in direct conflict with well established
constitutional law. As for your ethical argument, explain why you think it's
unethical to criminalize an individual's possession of rocket launchers,
printing plates for $20 bills, and the criminal records of others. The
government possesses and uses all of those quite routinely.

>But when disseminating information becomes criminal, we
>are all in dire trouble.

---snip---

Disseminating information is an act and disseminating certain types of
information has *always* been criminal.

>It's not like the bad guys on both sides of
>any conflict don't already have bombs.

It's not like nations don't already have nuclear weapons so what right does any
nation have to try to curb their proliferation?

>This "Patriot" bull**** is
>only a pretext for banning speech and trampling other closely guarded
>rights of citizenship.

If you believe that then you should either work to change or rewrite the law or
more practically, get the hell out of any country that is so morally bankrupt
that its elected leaders are constantly searching for new ways to deprive the
citizenry of their rights.

>I ask you what kind of society is it we inhabit where the police use
>explosives as a tool in civil disputes, yet posting *information*
>about explosives can land you in prison? One with a pretty flawed
>understanding of fundamental rights, I say.

---snip---

If we lived in such a society, I'd agree with you. I've been a cop for almost
20 years though and I've been through several periods of civil unrest. I've
never seen explosives used by the police as a tool. I can only think of two
instances where the allegation has even been made: 30+ years ago in
Philadelphia and almost 10 years ago at Waco. Both have been condemned by
society at large.

>> What he did different only in degree from a situation where someone gained
>> access to information your daily habits and schedule, your home address,
>your
>> family members' addresses, and your workplace location and then published
>that
>> information on a website named www.wehatechalosoletskillhim.com.
>
>But it is different to such a great degree that to criminalize what
>Sherman Austin is accused of is to violate the letter of the document
>which grants the govt its power.

You assert that there's a difference but fail to explain where that difference
lies. That's not an argument, it's an unsupported opinion.
BTW and again, he's no longer *accused of* anything. He pled guilty and now
he's just another inmate whining that life has been unfair to him.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

P.S.- If you wish to continue this discussion we should do so via email.

[Pete]

"Appkiller" > wrote in message
om...
> <snip>
> > What he did different only in degree from a situation where someone
gained
> > access to information your daily habits and schedule, your home address,
your
> > family members' addresses, and your workplace location and then
published that
> > information on a website named www.wehatechalosoletskillhim.com.
> >
> > I doubt you'd be quite so quick in that situation to claim that the
publication
> > of that information is protected speech.
> <snip>
>
> The pro-life crazies of the world are protected when they publish the
> names, phone numbers and addresses (in addition to all the other
> information listed above) of abortion providers on the internet.

Really.

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-221054.html?tag=rn
February 2, 1999
"Antiabortion activists were found guilty today of inciting violence by
posting on the Net a list of physicians names that reads like a "wanted"
poster."
"The more than 12 defendants in the case were ordered to pay $100 million in
damages to abortion clinics and doctors. They had argued that they have a
free speech right to publish details about the doctors, but after a
three-week trial, an eight-person jury found that such sites were a "true
threat" to physicians who perform abortions,..."

and then:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_260028.html
30th March 2001
"Anti-abortionists in the US have won the right to continue publishing a
hit-list of doctors on the internet.
A San Francisco appeals court said the website, known as the Nuremberg
Files, exercised people's right to free speech."

and then:

http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/amnews/pick_02/prsc0610.htm
June 10, 2002.
"Anti-abortion posters ruled "true threat"
An appeals court says protestors crossed the line between free speech and
threatening physicians. But the Supreme Court is likely to be the final
arbiter."

Not quite as cut and dried as you make it seem.

Pete
The real question is, do any of these people, docs or 'true threats', ride
bikes?

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"Pete" > writes:

> The real question is, do any of these people, docs or 'true threats', ride
> bikes?

I dunno, but I figure the Direct Action types would prefer
faster getaway vehicles.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Appkiller]

<snip>
But the Supreme Court is likely to be the final
> arbiter."
<snip>

What did the Supreme Court do?

App

[Pete]

"Appkiller" > wrote in message
m...
> <snip>
> But the Supreme Court is likely to be the final
> > arbiter."
> <snip>
>
> What did the Supreme Court do?
>
> App

Well...you *could* go look for yourself, but...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/936909/posts
6/27/2003
Supreme Court rejects appeal from anti-abortion activists [Nuremberg Files]
"WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court turned back an appeal Friday from
anti-abortion protesters facing a multimillion dollar judgment for targeting
clinic doctors with "wanted" posters."

Pete

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
(Hunrobe) writes:
> The mantra of extremists:
>
> "The government *always* lies to you."
> "The media *always* lies to you."
> "Big corporations *always* lie to you."
>
> "But you can take as gospel *everything* anyone convicted of a crime says."

I've just finished transcribing a documentary that partially
deals with the case of Aleksandr Nikitin, in Russia. He
was charged with espionage, under some secret, retroactive
law they have (had?) there. He won his case, with the help
of Bellona -- a Norwegian environmental research/action
organisation for whom Nikitin works. Since the law under
which he was charged was secret, he couldn't initially even
be prepared to face his charges.

All he did was to compile publicly-available information into
a report critizing the handling of nuclear waste.

I just thought you might find it interesting. There are
details of the Nikitin case at the Bellona web site. I don't
have the URL handy (I'm writing this off-line, and my link
is on my Windows partition, which I prefer not to boot into),
but a Google search on "Bellona Nikitin" should quickly
turn it up.

Anyhow, it provides an interesting insight into the draconian
Russian law system. I'm glad we don't have secret, retroactive
laws here.

And I don't think Austin Sherman is any Aleksandr Nikitin.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Pete]

"Appkiller" > wrote in message
om...
> Pete:
>
> It's easier to have you do it for me.
>

The cry of the ultra leftwinger rolls over the veldt.

Pete

[one of the six billion]

"Hunrobe" > wrote in message
...
> >Jym Dyer
>
> wrote in part:
>
> >A guilty plea can reflect many things. Most frequently,
> >it reflects the quality of the legal representation one can
> >afford. Sometimes it reflects actual guilt, but it is by no
> >means a reliable indicator.
>

I don't understand what he was guilty of. He provided a link to readily
available information. The party(s) responsible for the actual content
weren't even held responsible.


> I'm interested to know what you're basing this conclusion on since it's
> diametrically opposed to the experience and opinions of 99% of those that
> actually work in the criminal justice system, including members of the
defense
> bar.

I'm sure you'll be happy to provide sources.

> A guilty plea almost invariably means exactly what it sounds like- the
> defendant was guilty.

He was facing 20 years. With a plea bargain both the prosecution and the
FBI suggested 4 mos. That is basically being forced into a plea bargain.

[one of the six billion]

"Hunrobe" > wrote in message
...
> (Chalo)
>
> wrote:
>
> >If you think Sherman Austin is not being singled out for persecution
> >because of his political leanings, you're fooling yourself.
>
> ---snip---
>
> He isn't being persecuted. He was *prosecuted* for breaking the law.
Should we
> only prosecute those offenders that are members of the majority? If the
law was
> written so that it only applied to members of a political, social, or
racial
> minority then you could accurately claim persecution. It isn't so you
can't.
>

The law that he's accused of breaking is "intent". There was no evidence
of intent. He had no weapons or materials for the creation of such. He
was persecuted because of his political leanings. The thought police
cannot prove intent by the inclusion of a link on a website.



> >> He's claiming now that the
> >> information he published was "no worse than the information published
on
> >other
> >> sites". That's not an argument *against* his prosecution. It's an
argument
> >> *for* the prosecution of all those others.
> >
> >Information is not govt property, Bob.
>
> ---snip---
>
> No one is claiming it is. The foremost duty of any government is to
protect its
> citizens from harm that individual citizens can't protect themselves
from.

It would be great if that were true, but that statement is far from the
truth.

> I'd
> say that an individual citizen is unable to protect himself against a
bomb,
> wouldn't you?

They are more unable to protect themselves from the affairs of corporate
self interests that the government supports, as well as the government
itself. Wake up, Patriot Act two is on its way.


>
> >If he had actual valuable
> >information about explosives on his website, then his actions were
> >protected by both the 1st and 2nd Amendments and not just the 1st.
> >We can criminalize acts, no problem. When we criminalize possession
> >of certain things, particularly things that are routinely used by the
> >authorities, we're on shaky ground from an ethical and constitutional
> >standpoint.
>
> ---snip---
>
> Your legalistic argument is in direct conflict with well established
> constitutional law.

No, this case is, that's the whole point.


> As for your ethical argument, explain why you think it's
> unethical to criminalize an individual's possession of rocket launchers,
> printing plates for $20 bills, and the criminal records of others. The
> government possesses and uses all of those quite routinely.

Possession is not the same as knowledge. Without the ability of people to
know, how would the government or industry have those items for legal and
beneficial uses?


>
> >But when disseminating information becomes criminal, we
> >are all in dire trouble.
>
> ---snip---
>
> Disseminating information is an act and disseminating certain types of
> information has *always* been criminal.
>
> >It's not like the bad guys on both sides of
> >any conflict don't already have bombs.
>
> It's not like nations don't already have nuclear weapons so what right
does any
> nation have to try to curb their proliferation?
>
> >This "Patriot" bull**** is
> >only a pretext for banning speech and trampling other closely guarded
> >rights of citizenship.
>
> If you believe that then you should either work to change or rewrite the
law or
> more practically, get the hell out of any country that is so morally
bankrupt
> that its elected leaders are constantly searching for new ways to deprive
the
> citizenry of their rights.

Neither of those options are easy to do. Speaking out to others is a step
towards both options. Why should someone be forced from their home because
of morally bankrupt thugs anyway?


>
> >I ask you what kind of society is it we inhabit where the police use
> >explosives as a tool in civil disputes, yet posting *information*
> >about explosives can land you in prison? One with a pretty flawed
> >understanding of fundamental rights, I say.
>
> ---snip---
>
> If we lived in such a society, I'd agree with you. I've been a cop for
almost
> 20 years though and I've been through several periods of civil unrest.
I've
> never seen explosives used by the police as a tool. I can only think of
two
> instances where the allegation has even been made: 30+ years ago in
> Philadelphia and almost 10 years ago at Waco. Both have been condemned by
> society at large.

All this is not germane to the subject.



>
> >> What he did different only in degree from a situation where someone
gained
> >> access to information your daily habits and schedule, your home
address,
> >your
> >> family members' addresses, and your workplace location and then
published
> >that
> >> information on a website named www.wehatechalosoletskillhim.com.

Actually if all that information is available on the public domain it is
not illegal. There have been situations very similar with KKK and other
hate groups where their civil right to free speech allowed visible and
appalling displays of expression stand. In both this example and in this
case "intent" is the only thing that could be deemed criminal and with the
spirit of "beyond a shadow of a doubt" and "100 guilty go free lest 1
innocent be jailed", it should take hard evidence to even arrest let alone
convict.


> >
> >But it is different to such a great degree that to criminalize what
> >Sherman Austin is accused of is to violate the letter of the document
> >which grants the govt its power.
>
> You assert that there's a difference but fail to explain where that
difference
> lies. That's not an argument, it's an unsupported opinion.
> BTW and again, he's no longer *accused of* anything.

> He pled guilty and now
> he's just another inmate whining that life has been unfair to him.

He was railroaded into that plea, and it's not life but the US government
and it's newfound stance on eliminating civil rights to increase its
control that has been unfair to him.

[Mark Hickey]

"one of the six billion" > wrote:

>"Hunrobe" > wrote

>> He pled guilty and now
>> he's just another inmate whining that life has been unfair to him.
>
>He was railroaded into that plea, and it's not life but the US government
>and it's newfound stance on eliminating civil rights to increase its
>control that has been unfair to him.

Bottom line is - if the guy was as squeaky clean and innocent as you
claim, there would be NO reason for him to plead guilty - none. If
what he did was clearly within the boundaries of the law, there is no
way he would have been convicted.

That is obviously NOT the case - hence his plea. The defendant is
clearly the one person on earth with the best view of the facts, and
he made the decision he could not defend his own position in a court
of law before a jury of his peers. Why are WE second-guessing him?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[one of the six billion]

"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...
> "one of the six billion" > wrote:
>
> >"Hunrobe" > wrote
>
> >> He pled guilty and now
> >> he's just another inmate whining that life has been unfair to him.
> >
> >He was railroaded into that plea, and it's not life but the US
government
> >and it's newfound stance on eliminating civil rights to increase its
> >control that has been unfair to him.
>
> Bottom line is - if the guy was as squeaky clean and innocent as you
> claim, there would be NO reason for him to plead guilty - none. If
> what he did was clearly within the boundaries of the law, there is no
> way he would have been convicted.
>
> That is obviously NOT the case - hence his plea. The defendant is
> clearly the one person on earth with the best view of the facts, and
> he made the decision he could not defend his own position in a court
> of law before a jury of his peers. Why are WE second-guessing him?
>

They were threatening him with 20 years, or giving him the supposed option
of 4 mos. with a plea bargain. That's railroading. All this for posting
somebody else's link on his site. With the ridiculousness of the charge
and the roughness the feds treated him with, he had every bit to fear of
actually being put away for 20 years.

[John Foltz]

ride your bike wrote:
> God bless America
>
> http://www.raisethefist.com/news.cgi?artical=wire/-----74814smallsherm.gifI
> MG.article
>
>
> SHERMAN AUSTIN SENTENCED TO ONE YEAR IN FEDERAL PRISON
>
> Sherman Austin, webmaster of RaisetheFist.com, was sentenced today, August
> 4, 2003, to one year in federal prison, with three years of probation.
> Judge Wilson shocked the courtroom when he went against the recommendation
> of not only the prosecution, but the FBI and the Justice Department, who
> had asked that Austin be sentenced to 4 months in prison, and 4 months in a
> half-way house, with 3 years of probation.
>
> Austin's probation stipulates, among other things, that (1) he cannot
> possess or access a computer of any kind without prior approval of his
> probation officer, (2) if his probation officer gives permission, the
> equipment is subject to monitoring and is subject to search and seizure at
> any time, without notice, (3) he cannot alter any of the software or
> hardware on any computer he uses, (4) he must surrender his phone, DSL,
> electric, and satellite bills, (5) he cannot associate with any person or
> group that seeks to change the government in any way (be that
> environmental, social justice, political, economic, etc.), and (6) he must
> pay over $2,000 in fines and restitution. Austin must surrender himself to
> the Federal Bureau of Prisons by September 3, 2003.
>
> To contact sherman, email
>
> FROM SHERMAN AUSTIN:
>
> On Jan 24, 2002 , my home was surrounded and raided by approximately 25
> heavily armed FBI and Secret Service agents in one of the governments first
> attempts to exercise the new US Patriot Act. I was interrogated for several
> hours while they ransacked my room and they seized a network of computers
> which I used to run my web site raisethefist.com. They also seized protest
> signs, and political literature. Their excuse was a protest guide (which I
> didn't author) that was posted to my site which a small portion contained
> information on explosives. The FBI had been monitoring the site long before
> this was ever posted, and long before Sept 11. The "explosives information"
> on my site (again which I didn't author) doesn't compare to what you an
> find on any other web sites such as howthingswork.com, Loompanics.com,
> Bombshock.com, Totse.com, Amazon.com, or the many neo nazi web sites which
> cover everything from assassinations, explosives, fraud and firearms. It's
> obvious a web surfer interested in making a bomb or taking part in other
> extra-illegal activities would not have to rely on Raisethefist.com. So how
> could the "bomb making information" on raisethefist.com be a concern to
> authorities? It wasn't a concern, it was simply used an excuse to exercise
> the new Patriot Act and take down the site. And that's what they did when
> federal agents spent 5-6 hours interrogating me while they disassembled
> each computer one by one , mirrored each hard drive, then loaded everything
> into a big white truck. During this whole process I was told I wasn't going
> to be arrested, and that I could even leave if I wanted to. Once the agents
> finished packing everything up, Special Agent John I. Pi, who was
> conducting the investigation and raid said that I had crossed a line, and
> as long as I got back on the other side of that line I'd be okay.
>
> A week later despite what happened I still continued with my plans to
> attend the demonstration against the World Economic Forum in NY. As I was
> waiting for the march to begin, a swarm of NYPD officers rushed straight at
> me and scooped up about 26 people, one of which was me. We sat on a bus for
> 7 hours before being taken to Brooklyn Navy Yard Jail. I was there for
> about 30 hours before I was taken out of my cell and put into a backroom in
> handcuffs and interrogated once again by the FBI and Secret Service for
> several hours. They asked me questions such as if I was a terrorist or
> involved in any terrorist organizations. During the interrogation I noticed
> more and more agents walking through the room. I was told I wouldn't leave
> custody unless they searched my car. I said I had nothing to hide and simpl
> y wanted to go home. Stressed and aggravated, I signed over my keys. A few
> minutes later I was driven to the court and released. As I was waiting for
> someone to pick me up, about 5 FBI agents entered the court and said I was
> arrested for "distribution of information related to explosives over the
> internet". One of the agents grabbed my neck and told me to shut the ****
> up while I tried to tell one of the legal observers I was being arrested. I
> was hurried out of the court house into a black SUV where I was driven to a
> federal building. I was then taken to lower Manhattan MCC maximum security
> 24 hour lockdown federal jail facility. At my bail hearing the FBI called
> me a "man on a mission" and said I drove 3,000 miles to carry out my
> alleged "plot". The judge said I was a "threat to the community" and denied
> me bail, and I was to be extradited back to California to face my charges.
> After 11 days I was shackled and taken to an airforce base where federal
> inmates are boarded onto planes surrounded by guards with M16's and shot
> guns, like prisoners of war, and flown to a federal jail "hub" in Oklahoma.
> Once I got there, I learned the next day that the prosecutors decided not
> to file an indictment. I was released after spending 13 days in custody.
> When I got back to Los Angeles I put raisethefist.com back up almost
> immediately. I continued my political organizing within the community, as
> well as my work with Raise the Fist which developed into a Direct Action
> Network with chapters setup around the world. 6 months later prosecutors
> contacted my lawyer and said they found nothing to prosecute me for on my
> computers, but didn't want to "let me off the hook". They offered me a
> pre-indictment binding plea agreement which was initially 1 month in jail,
> and 5 months in a "community corrections facility". I rejected the plea at
> first, wanting to go to trial until we discovered the case was eligible for
> a terrorism enhancement, which could have added 20 years to my sentence.
>
> I therefore decided to enter a plea. I played months of legal limbo until I
> finally expected to get sentenced to 4 months in jail and 4 months in a
> community corrections facility based on the final pre-sentencing report
> written by the USPO. The judge rejected the 4 months saying what kind of an
> example would it set for "future revolutionaries" wanting to act in the
> same manner. He stated he wanted to give me at least 8-10 months but first
> wanted the opinion of the Justice Department and the Director of the FBI in
> Washington, DC (Robert Muller). My sentencing was rescheduled several times
> until August 4th. I was convicted for felony; distribution of information
> related to explosives with intent, and sentenced to 1 year in federal
> prison with 3 years supervised release.
>
> Distribution of information related to explosives is not illegal.. What's
> illegal is the INTENT part. They have to prove you have intent to use the
> information to cause further crime of violence .. and how do they prove
> intent? I think Bush made it clear when he said "you're either with me or
> against me".
>
> Remember, fascism and a police state doesn't come all at once, it comes
> piece by piece. How far will we allow it go until we are all locked up in
> concentration camps.
>
> If we don't take matters into our own hands and do something about this
> now, then we are already prisoners of war.
>
> Raisethefist.com is not shutting down, and the RTF Direct Action Network
> will continue to grow and remain active. A 1 year sentence is not the end
> of this. It's just the begining.
>
>
>
>

Am I the only one reading this NG who is wondering what this has to
do with bikes?

--

John Foltz --- O _
Baron --- _O _ V-Rex 24 --- _\\/\-%)
_________(_)`=()___________________(_)= (_)_____

[one of the six billion]

"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...

> It's not like a murder case where they have to prove what he did -
> there is NO doubt what he did. The question is, was it legal? His
> response answers a resounding "no".
>

He just provided a link to an existing web site. Why haven't they touched
the people that actually supplied the information on that web site? It's
not illegal. You can get that information from books on Amazon.com, and
many other places in the public domain.

[Hunrobe]

>"one of the six billion"

wrote:

>"Hunrobe" > wrote:

>> (Chalo)
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If you think Sherman Austin is not being singled out for persecution
>> >because of his political leanings, you're fooling yourself.
>>
>> ---snip---
>>
>> He isn't being persecuted. He was *prosecuted* for breaking the law.
>Should we
>> only prosecute those offenders that are members of the majority? If the
>law was
>> written so that it only applied to members of a political, social, or
>racial
>> minority then you could accurately claim persecution. It isn't so you
>can't.
>>
>
>The law that he's accused of breaking is "intent". There was no evidence
>of intent. He had no weapons or materials for the creation of such. He
>was persecuted because of his political leanings. The thought police
>cannot prove intent by the inclusion of a link on a website.

---snip---

Again, he isn't *accused* of breaking any law. He pled guilty and had to admit
to sufficient facts to justify that plea. Which part of that don't you
understand?


>> >> He's claiming now that the
>> >> information he published was "no worse than the information published
>on
>> >other
>> >> sites". That's not an argument *against* his prosecution. It's an
>argument
>> >> *for* the prosecution of all those others.
>> >
>> >Information is not govt property, Bob.
>>
>> ---snip---
>>
>> No one is claiming it is. The foremost duty of any government is to
>protect its
>> citizens from harm that individual citizens can't protect themselves
>from.
>
>It would be great if that were true, but that statement is far from the
>truth.

---snip---

If you don't believe that to be the foremost duty of government, what *do* you
think government's primary duty is?

>> I'd
>> say that an individual citizen is unable to protect himself against a
>bomb,
>> wouldn't you?
>
>They are more unable to protect themselves from the affairs of corporate
>self interests that the government supports, as well as the government
>itself. Wake up, Patriot Act two is on its way.

---snip---

I think you just answered my question. Government's primary duty is to protect
the citizenry from government. I'm glad you cleared that up.

>> >If he had actual valuable
>> >information about explosives on his website, then his actions were
>> >protected by both the 1st and 2nd Amendments and not just the 1st.
>> >We can criminalize acts, no problem. When we criminalize possession
>> >of certain things, particularly things that are routinely used by the
>> >authorities, we're on shaky ground from an ethical and constitutional
>> >standpoint.
>>
>> ---snip---
>>
>> Your legalistic argument is in direct conflict with well established
>> constitutional law.

>
>No, this case is, that's the whole point.
>

---snip---

That may be your opinion and you're entitled to it. That you hold that opinion
doesn't make it a fact though. If you want to sit as an appellate court cite
even one case that supports your opinion.

>> As for your ethical argument, explain why you think it's
>> unethical to criminalize an individual's possession of rocket launchers,
>> printing plates for $20 bills, and the criminal records of others. The
>> government possesses and uses all of those quite routinely.
>
>Possession is not the same as knowledge. Without the ability of people to
>know, how would the government or industry have those items for legal and
>beneficial uses?
>

---snip---

How carefully are you reading? Chalo stated baldly that it's unethical to
forbid private citizens the right to possess things routinely used by the
government. I named three specific things that government routinely uses and
asked why it would be unethical to forbid their possession by private citizens.
Neither Chalo nor you have answered that question. I assume then that what
Chalo meant was that it's unethical to forbid the possession of *some* things.
Now we simply have to decide which things are okay and which are not.


>> >But when disseminating information becomes criminal, we
>> >are all in dire trouble.
>>
>> ---snip---
>>
>> Disseminating information is an act and disseminating certain types of
>> information has *always* been criminal.
>>
>> >It's not like the bad guys on both sides of
>> >any conflict don't already have bombs.
>>
>> It's not like nations don't already have nuclear weapons so what right
>does any
>> nation have to try to curb their proliferation?
>>
>> >This "Patriot" bull**** is
>> >only a pretext for banning speech and trampling other closely guarded
>> >rights of citizenship.
>>
>> If you believe that then you should either work to change or rewrite the
>law or
>> more practically, get the hell out of any country that is so morally
>bankrupt
>> that its elected leaders are constantly searching for new ways to deprive
>the
>> citizenry of their rights.
>
>Neither of those options are easy to do. Speaking out to others is a step
>towards both options. Why should someone be forced from their home because
>of morally bankrupt thugs anyway?

---snip---

Why should we simply take your or anyone's word for who is or is not a morally
bankrupt thug? You aren't making an argument, you're simply namecalling.

>> >I ask you what kind of society is it we inhabit where the police use
>> >explosives as a tool in civil disputes, yet posting *information*
>> >about explosives can land you in prison? One with a pretty flawed
>> >understanding of fundamental rights, I say.
>>
>> ---snip---
>>
>> If we lived in such a society, I'd agree with you. I've been a cop for
>almost
>> 20 years though and I've been through several periods of civil unrest.
>I've
>> never seen explosives used by the police as a tool. I can only think of
>two
>> instances where the allegation has even been made: 30+ years ago in
>> Philadelphia and almost 10 years ago at Waco. Both have been condemned by
>> society at large.

>All this is not germane to the subject.

---snip---

Germane to which subject? I was responding to Chalo's claim that police use
explosives as tools in civil disputes. I'll agree with you though. Chalo's
claim was not germane but then neither is your namecalling so it's a wash.

>>
>> >> What he did different only in degree from a situation where someone
>gained
>> >> access to information your daily habits and schedule, your home
>address,
>> >your
>> >> family members' addresses, and your workplace location and then
>published
>> >that
>> >> information on a website named www.wehatechalosoletskillhim.com.
>
>Actually if all that information is available on the public domain it is
>not illegal. There have been situations very similar with KKK and other
>hate groups where their civil right to free speech allowed visible and
>appalling displays of expression stand. In both this example and in this
>case "intent" is the only thing that could be deemed criminal and with the
>spirit of "beyond a shadow of a doubt" and "100 guilty go free lest 1
>innocent be jailed", it should take hard evidence to even arrest let alone
>convict.

You seem to be saying the evidence doesn't exist simply because *you* don't
know about it. Were you present in the courtroom when Austin pled guilty? I ask
because, since he pled guilty and to release any evidence not in the court
record *would* violate Austin's rights, the only hard evidence the public will
ever receive is that evidence that Austin admitted to in court when he pled
guilty. BTW, intent is almost always an essential element of any crime. It's
also often the hardest to prove because it requires gaining some kind of
insight into what a person thinks. In a guilty plea though the defendant has to
expressly admit his intent. You apparently don't think someone saying, "This
was my intent" and the existence of independent facts that indicate that intent
are sufficient proof of their intent. Exactly what *would* be sufficient?


>> >But it is different to such a great degree that to criminalize what
>> >Sherman Austin is accused of is to violate the letter of the document
>> >which grants the govt its power.
>>
>> You assert that there's a difference but fail to explain where that
>difference
>> lies. That's not an argument, it's an unsupported opinion.
>> BTW and again, he's no longer *accused of* anything.
>
>> He pled guilty and now
>> he's just another inmate whining that life has been unfair to him.

>He was railroaded into that plea, and it's not life but the US government
>and it's newfound stance on eliminating civil rights to increase its
>control that has been unfair to him.

---snip---

You continue to assert that he was railroaded into a plea without offering even
a speck of evidence to support that assertion. The convicted man's cry, "I was
framed!" isn't evidence. As I said before, the only evidence the public will
ever have access to is the evidence in the court record, you know, the things
that Austin *admitted*.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Hunrobe]

>"one of the six billion"

wrote:

>I don't understand what he was guilty of. He provided a link to readily
>available information. The party(s) responsible for the actual content
>weren't even held responsible.

---snip---

If you don't even understand the charge then why are you arguing about it?


>He was facing 20 years. With a plea bargain both the prosecution and the
>FBI suggested 4 mos. That is basically being forced into a plea bargain.

Re-read the post. He "discovered" that the maximum penalty could be a prison
sentence of as much as twenty years. He isn't alleging that he was threatened
with that. The feds didn't suggest a sentence of four months. They agreed to a
sentence of four months in a prison and four more months in a "community-based
facility", i.e., work release. That's eight months, not four. The suggested
term of probation was three years. What he *got* from a judge that "wanted to
send a message" was twelve months in prison and three years probation.
Would you plead guilty to a crime that you didn't commit knowing you'd be
jailed for eight months just to avoid the risk of being wrongfully convicted
and spending four extra months in jail? If so, you're an idiot.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Hunrobe]

>"one of the six billion"

wrote:

>They were threatening him with 20 years, or giving him the supposed option
>of 4 mos. with a plea bargain. That's railroading. All this for posting
>somebody else's link on his site. With the ridiculousness of the charge
>and the roughness the feds treated him with, he had every bit to fear of
>actually being put away for 20 years.

I'll try to explain this to you one last time and then I'm withdrawing from
this thread.

First, you are the only one saying he was "threatened with 20 years". What
Sherman actually *wrote* was that he "discovered that the maximum sentence was
20 years". He may have read the actual statute, asked his attorney what the max
was, or just been paying attention when he met with prosecutors at a proffer
meeting. In those meetings the prosecutors are *required* by both the canon of
ethics and U.S. Supreme Court rules to accurately describe the range of
sentences for the charges as prescribed by law. Would you prefer a system where
the defendant is refused that information?
Second, he doesn't claim he was ever offered a four month sentence. He says he
was offered four months in what he called "a jail", four months in a "halfway
house" (that's PC speak for a work release center), and three years probation.
Four plus four equals eight months of incarceration. The judge rejected that
sentence and instead gave him twelve months of incarceration and three years of
probation. Under federal truth-in-sentencing guidelines the difference between
the sentence he expected and the one he received is roughly *two* months. Wow,
two whole additional months in a federal minimum security prison. No wonder
he's devastated. That's barely enough extra time to allow him to complete his
appeal briefs without the interruptions of working for a living.
Before accepting any plea U.S. judges are required to advise the defendant in
open court and on the record that they are not bound by any agreement reached
between prosecutors and the defense. Sherman heard that and persisted in his
plea. What he probably heard next was the judge saying something like, "You
wish to plead guilty to these charges because you are in fact guilty, is that
true?" (That phrasing is pretty much standard in every court in the U.S., State
or Federal.) He had to have answered "yes" or the proceeding would have stopped
right there. Next the judge would have asked to hear sufficient facts to
justify that plea. Usually that comes in the form of a brief synopsis by the
prosecutor but sometimes the defendant is allowed to summarize the facts.
Either way, the judge then asks the defendant if the facts just outlined are
what happened/what he did and *again* asks the defendant if he wishes to plead
guilty. If the defendant answers yes, then and only then will the judge accept
the plea and- if he's ready to do so- pronounce the sentence. Even then the
defendant may withdraw his plea of guilty and demand a trial if he does so in
writing in a timely fashion. Some "railroad job"!

Bottom line- the dude knew he was breaking the law, did it anyway, and is now
just whining that he was screwed. That type of whining is very common.
Unfortunately, there are always plenty of people that *believe* the most
ridiculous of claims because they've gotten all their information on how U.S.
courts work from old Perry Mason reruns, Judge Judy episodes, and the whinings
of all those poor dears that of course are wrongfully imprisoned.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Eric S. Sande]

>Bottom line- the dude knew he was breaking the law, did it anyway,
>and is now just whining that he was screwed.

Damn, Bob, that's fairly harsh.

I suppose a bicycle for his work release is out of the question.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

[Hunrobe]

>"Eric S. Sande"

wrote:

>Damn, Bob, that's fairly harsh.
>
>I suppose a bicycle for his work release is out of the question.

I'm guessing there was a smiley somewhere. <g>

Personally, instead of allowing him the undeniable privilege of being a cyclist
I would rather he was given a broom and put on a road crew sweeping glass and
debris off the shoulders of the road in front of my house. Someone will see
truly "harsh" if I ever catch the boneheads that throw their cans and bottles
there.

Regards,
Bob Hunt