------------------------------
From: louisg <
[email protected]>
Subject: Response to recent comments concerning Len Rose
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 91 23:53:44 CDT
********************************************************************
*** CuD #3.13: File 3 of 4: Response to Len Rose Article (2) ***
********************************************************************
In CuD 312 Mr. James Davies wrote a letter expressing his feelings on
the Len Rose case. I feel that he and many others are missing the
larger point of the issue, as I will try to describe.
>Subject: Len Rose
>From:
[email protected](James Davies)
>Keith Hansen and Arel Lucas in CuD #3.11 shared with us their letter
>to AT&T expressing their anger at the arrest and conviction of Len
>Rose (among other things). Well, I have to disagree with their
>conclusions in this case -- Len Rose is not an innocent martyr,
>crucified by an evil corporation for benevolently giving unpaid
>support to AT&T software users, as Hansen and Lucas attempted to
>portray him.
Mr. Davies is quite correct when he states that Len was not innocent
of certain criminal acts as defined by current law. The trial has
come and gone, and Len pleaded guilty. Mr. Davies even provides
evidence of Mr. Rose's intent. Whether it is 'court-quality' evidence
or not, it should convince the reader that Len was guilty of something
or other. By checking the references that Mr. Davies provides, his
case of Rose's guilt is made even stronger. I am stating this since I
want to make it *clear* that I am NOT questioning the guilt of Mr. Rose.
What I must question, however, is what happened to Mr. Rose.
Mr. Rose commited white-collar crimes. He did not physically injure
or maim or kill anyone. His crime was money-related. He did not
steal from a 75 year-old on social security, giving her a kick in the
ribs for good luck on his way out. The way he was treated, however,
suggests that he committed a crime of the most heinous nature.
For a felony violent crime, I could understand and even in some cases
promote strict treatment of the accused before the trial. For a white
collar crime that does not threaten the solvency of a company or
persons I cannot.
Len Rose posed a risk to no person or company after his warrant was
served. Before he was even put on trial, he had almost all of his
belongings taken away, was harassed (in my opinion) by the
authorities, and left without a means for supporting himself and his
family. Why? Because he had Unix source code. Does this seem just to
you? It would be very different if he had 55 warrants for rape and
murder in 48 states listing him as the accused, but he didn't. He
lost everything *before* the trial, and, as a result, was almost
forced into pleading guilty. All this for copyright violations, as I
see it, or felony theft as others may see it.
The problem here is the *same* as in the Steve Jackson case. The
person who was served the warrant (he wasn't even charged yet!!!!)
lost everything. They were punished not only before a conviction,
before a trial, but before they were even charged with a crime!!!
This, for a non-violent, white-collar crime that did not directly
threaten a person or company with bankruptcy. In Jackson's case, he
was even innocent!
>Personally, I think that Rose is guilty of the exact same sort of
>behaviour that gives hackers a bad name in the press, and I think that
>you're crazy to be supporting him in this. Save your indignation for
>true misjustices, ok?
If this isn't an injustice, then I don't know what is. If this sort
of treatment of the accused seems just to you, Mr. Davies, then may I
suggest a position in the secret police of some Fascist country as a
fitting career move on your part. The fact that Len was guilty does
not nullify the maltreatment of him, his family, and his equipment
before his trial. It in no wise makes it right. This sort of action
gives law enforcement a bad name. I'm sure that I would share your
views if the accused was a habitual criminal and he
presented a threat to the public. He wasn't, and presented little or
no threat at the time of the warrant. Law enforcement is there to
protect the public, and not to convict the guilty. That is a job for
the courts and a jury of one's peers as stipulated in the U.S.
Constitution. I suggest you glance at it before you restate that
there was no "misjustice" (sic) here.
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
