Hi Jeff,
In re: Message 18348469
...AND dont forget CARNIVORE, so inter-poster communications are available for all to read.... IN GOOD TIME...
Plaintiff Zwebner makes reference to the Carnivore software, but does not actually claim access to the software, nor access to the output from the software. Plaintiff Zwebner does not claim possession of the software. Rather he makes a statement that implies that Carnivore is running and may be obtaining data. Theoretically, plaintiff Zwebner could defend his statement by claiming to have filed complaints with the FBI (maybe true), perhaps requesting that they (FBI) run Carnivore (maybe true), and presumed that they (FBI) had actually done so.
Plaintiffs Zwebner's statement is crafted in such a way as to permit the reader to assume that he (Zwebner) has or had access to the Carnivore software or its output, but nowhere in this post is that claim actually made; rather the decision as to the "whos, whats and wheres" is left to the vivid imaginations of the readers.
In re: Message 19233278
the CARNIVORE system is reporting lots of new emails and lots of chatter... from "the fool" to his cohorts...
more to come soon...
wink..wink..or in his case is it wank wank...??
This particular reference is much the same as the in first instance provided. No specific claims are made. Plaintiff Zwebner could defend this statement with the same argument as in the previous statement.
oh, and CARNIVORE askes... who is TWhee24778@aol.com
This statement is a bit more difficult to defend, as it implies specific data or output from the Carnivore software. However, plaintiff Zwebner could defend it saying that he acquired the specific information elsewhere and presumed that the Carnivore program had also acquired the same data.
There are many more Carnivore references in plaintiff Zwebner's posts (as documented in your link). However, none of them actually claims access to either the software or its output. As previously stated, everything is left to the imagination of the reader.
Now, in closing, anyone who has actually had contact with the FBI or the SEC or likely any government agency should know that information flow is a one-way street. They gladly and politely accept all information offered, but rarely if ever do they provide information flow back to the individual. So, in my opinion, plaintiff Zwebner's claims are preposterous and highly likely untruths.
Furthermore, any poster or lurker over on Raging Bull that might actually think that there was some element of truth to plaintiff Zwebner's claims should have their own head examined.
This is a good example of why I avoid Raging Bull. Just too many pathological liars and complete idiots over there for me to stomach... (not a reference to any specific poster or individual; just a generalization)
KJC |
