|
|
silver-surfer
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 9
|
Mech = Jetblack
 Tue Jun 22, 2004 3:57 am
|
 |
|
Last night I observed the traffic on this forum.....
A moderator known only as Mech appeared, i.p. (xxx.xxx.xxx.xx)
however, Once Mech arrived and read the posts he then went invisible. At this point he created a username 'jetblack'.
After creating this username he then added a post in reply to a post by username
"tachyon" which was later claimed to be a double post of tachyon. However the person that actually double posted this was mech. Now this is a matter of fraud which is investigated by the federal bureau of investigation; section 1001, title 18, us code.)
The fact is that Mech propogated a post under a name in which he registered 'jetblack', then went on to assume that this name was generated by the forementioned poster, 'tachyon'. This was done in direct violation of US code. The moderator known as mech should in all respects forfeiture such duties as administrator or as such the domain "chemtrailcentral" will be accountable for such actions. It is encouraged that the website owner review all of the website logs to determine wether or not their administrative party is guilty of such felonious crimes. Accountability will be held upon the primary adminsistrator of this sight in the event that such evidence is discovered.
A formal complaint has been filed with the NIPC as well as the FBI in accordance with federal internet communication code. Copies of the forum records as well as I.P. logs are forthcoming.
[Edited 5 times, lastly by silver-surfer on 06-21-2004] |
| |
|
|
JerseyBluEyz
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast |
|
Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:28 am
|
|
|
OMG! That is SO RICH! LOL!
That is one heck of an accusation there! How on Earth could you possibly know that Mech created the username jetblack? Sounds to me like you’re fishing and there isn’t much taking your bait!
Throwing around U.S. Codes like you know what you’re talking about sounds like a federal offense to me! At least it should be - ha! If you REALLY knew what you were talking about, you’d have labeled the code: 18 USC 1001. You got it all backwards! If you’re going to start a legal argument here, you'd better know what you're talking about!
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/uscfraud.html
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 2, 2001]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 2, 2001 and January 28, 2002]
[CITE: 18USC1001]
TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 47--FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
Sec. 1001. Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and
willfully--
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same
to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement
or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or
both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial
proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations,
writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or
magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the
legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to--
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a
matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel
or employment practices, or support services, or a document required
by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any
office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the
authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of
the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or
Senate.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 749; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII,
Sec. 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104-292,
Sec. 2, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3459.)
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Sec. 80 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321,
Sec. 35, 35 Stat. 1095; Oct. 23, 1918, ch. 194, 40 Stat. 1015; June 18,
1934, ch. 587, 48 Stat. 996; Apr. 4, 1938, ch. 69, 52 Stat. 197).
Section 80 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was divided into two
parts.
The provision relating to false claims was incorporated in section
287 of this title.
Reference to persons causing or procuring was omitted as unnecessary
in view of definition of ``principal'' in section 2 of this title.
Words ``or any corporation in which the United States of America is
a stockholder'' in said section 80 were omitted as unnecessary in view
of definition of ``agency'' in section 6 of this title.
In addition to minor changes of phraseology, the maximum term of
imprisonment was changed from 10 to 5 years to be consistent with
comparable sections. (See reviser's note under section 287 of this
title.)
Amendments
1996--Pub. L. 104-292 reenacted section catchline without change and
amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows:
``Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or
agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals
or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes
any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or
makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain
any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.''
1994--Pub. L. 103-322 substituted ``fined under this title'' for
``fined not more than $10,000''.
Change of Name
Reference to United States magistrate or to magistrate deemed to
refer to United States magistrate judge pursuant to section 321 of Pub.
L. 101-650, set out as a note under section 631 of Title 28, Judiciary
and Judicial Procedure.
Short Title of 2000 Amendment
Pub. L. 106-578, Sec. 1, Dec. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 3075, provided
that: ``This Act [amending section 1028 of this title, repealing section
1738 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under
section 1028 of this title] may be cited as the `Internet False
Identification Prevention Act of 2000'.''
Short Title of 1998 Amendments
Pub. L. 105-318, Sec. 1, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 3007, provided
that: ``This Act [amending sections 982, 1028, and 2516 of this title
and section 105 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-521,
set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and
Employees, and enacting provisions set out as notes under section 1028
of this title and section 994 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial
Procedure] may be cited as the `Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence
Act of 1998'.''
Pub. L. 105-172, Sec. 1, Apr. 24, 1998, 112 Stat. 53, provided that:
``This Act [amending section 1029 of this title and enacting provisions
set out as a note under section 994 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial
Procedure] may be cited as the `Wireless Telephone Protection Act'.''
Short Title of 1996 Amendment
Section 1 of Pub. L. 104-292 provided that: ``This Act [amending
this section, sections 1515 and 6005 of this title, and section 1365 of
Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure] may be cited as the `False
Statements Accountability Act of 1996'.''
Short Title of 1994 Amendment
Section 290001(a) of Pub. L. 103-322, as amended by Pub. L. 104-294,
title VI, Sec. 604(b)(34), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3508, provided that:
``This section [amending section 1030 of this title] may be cited as the
`Computer Abuse Amendments Act of 1994'.''
Short Title of 1990 Amendment
Pub. L. 101-647, title XXV, Sec. 2500, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat.
4859, provided that: ``This title [see Tables for classification] may be
cited as the `Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and
Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990'.''
Short Title of 1989 Amendment
Pub. L. 101-123, Sec. 1, Oct. 23, 1989, 103 Stat. 759, provided
that: ``This Act [amending section 1031 of this title, repealing section
293 of this title, enacting provisions set out as notes under sections
293 and 1031 of this title, and repealing provisions set out as a note
under section 293 of this title] may be cited as the `Major Fraud Act
Amendments of 1989'.''
Short Title of 1988 Amendment
Pub. L. 100-700, Sec. 1, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4631, provided
that: ``This Act [enacting sections 293 and 1031 of this title and
section 256 of Title 41, Public Contracts, amending section 2324 of
Title 10, Armed Forces, and section 3730 of Title 31, Money and Finance,
enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 293 and 1031 of this
title, section 2324 of Title 10, and section 522 of Title 28, Judiciary
and Judicial Procedure, and repealing provisions set out as a note under
section 2324 of Title 10] may be cited as the `Major Fraud Act of
1988'.''
Short Title of 1986 Amendment
Pub. L. 99-474, Sec. 1, Oct. 16, 1986, 100 Stat. 1213, provided
that: ``This Act [amending section 1030 of this title] may be cited as
the `Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986'.''
Short Title of 1984 Amendment
Pub. L. 98-473, title II, Sec. 1601, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2183,
provided that: ``This chapter [chapter XVI (Secs. 1601-1603) of title II
of Pub. L. 98-473, enacting section 1029 of this title and provisions
set out as a note under section 1029 of this title] may be cited as the
`Credit Card Fraud Act of 1984'.''
Pub. L. 98-473, title II, Sec. 2101, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2190,
provided that: ``This chapter [chapter XXI (Secs. 2101-2103) of title II
of Pub. L. 98-473, enacting section 1030 of this title and provisions
set out as a note under section 1030 of this title] may be cited as the
`Counterfeit Access Device and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984'.''
Short Title of 1982 Amendment
Section 1 of Pub. L. 97-398 provided: ``That this Act [enacting
sections 1028 and 1738 of this title and amending section 3001 of Title
39, Postal Service] may be cited as the `False Identification Crime
Control Act of 1982'.''
Section Referred to in Other Sections
This section is referred to in sections 14, 24, 981, 982, 1345,
3059A of this title; title 2 section 437g; title 7 sections 12a, 136h,
511r, 1314i, 5662, 6519; title 8 section 1324a; title 12 section 1833a;
title 15 sections 637, 657a, 6003; title 17 section 1312; title 19
sections 2515, 3391, 3432; title 22 sections 1623, 3622; title 35
section 25; title 40 section 276c; title 42 sections 2000b-3, 2000c-6,
3426, 3795a; title 43 section 1212; title 49 section 5307. |
| |
|
|
silver-surfer
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 9
|
|
Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:35 am
|
|
|
The section and code cited is relevant. Your elaborate research, as redundant as it is, is pointless. There is proof of my claims, and more than simple usernames have been submitted. Perhaps you'd like a place among the socialist chemmies? |
| |
|
|
JerseyBluEyz
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast |
|
Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:58 am
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by silver-surfer:
Perhaps you'd like a place among the socialist chemmies?
What's a socialist chemmie? Are you threatening me?
|
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:00 am
|
|
|
Surfer the Internet cop, about as useful as mall security. Where did you get your badge for this self-assigned duty, a Crackerjack box? |
| |
|
|
JerseyBluEyz
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast |
|
Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:13 am
|
|
|
LOL! Surfer Cop!
Isn’t it interesting how a TWO SECOND search at FindLaw is called an “elaborate search”?
I have a question. If my posting his Code (so everyone can read it) is pointless, then doesn’t that make his quoting the Code pointless too?
|
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:21 am
|
|
|
Either that or he feels his own fictitious version of law is more applicable to the fallacious charges he's presenting. |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Tue Jun 22, 2004 1:07 pm
|
|
|
That's OK. Here is the line of accusations that have abounded on these sites:
DannyRock=Jenna=Emfx13=Mech=swampgas=Thetaloops=Jeanie=Jetblack=Krissa=JerseyBlueyz=Satan=Chemmie Socialists=Chemmie Capitalists
It gets awful crowded in here, and would somebody go out for Chinese Food?
|
| |
|
|
emfx13
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 959
Location: Hayward Ca.U.S.A. |
|
Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:43 pm
|
|
|
Why do you insist on slandering mech? He has done nothing to anyone but provide valuable information. If you have a problem with mech you have a problem with me...with us all. Go back to school where your king of it all... |
| |
|
|
JerseyBluEyz
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast |
|
Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:43 pm
|
|
|
LOL! It sure DOES look crowded in there!
The funniest screen name combination is when Danny Rock and Jenna are accused of being the same person! How absurd! As a matter of fact THAT accusation is STILL being thrown around! Too funny!
|
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3136
Location: Texas |
|
Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:53 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Last night I observed the traffic on this forum.....
A moderator known only as Mech appeared, i.p. (xxx.xxx.xxx.xx)
however, Once Mech arrived and read the posts he then went invisible. At this point he created a username 'jetblack'.
After creating this username he then added a post in reply to a post by username
"tachyon" which was later claimed to be a double post of tachyon. However the person that actually double posted this was mech. Now this is a matter of fraud which is investigated by the federal bureau of investigation; section 1001, title 18, us code.)
The fact is that Mech propogated a post under a name in which he registered 'jetblack', then went on to assume that this name was generated by the forementioned poster, 'tachyon'. This was done in direct violation of US code. The moderator known as mech should in all respects forfeiture such duties as administrator or as such the domain "chemtrailcentral" will be accountable for such actions. It is encouraged that the website owner review all of the website logs to determine wether or not their administrative party is guilty of such felonious crimes. Accountability will be held upon the primary adminsistrator of this sight in the event that such evidence is discovered.
A formal complaint has been filed with the NIPC as well as the FBI in accordance with federal internet communication code. Copies of the forum records as well as I.P. logs are forthcoming.
WTF?
That's one of the silliest things I've ever read. LOL.
Don't feed the trolls kids, they are supposed to be on a starvation diet.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Thermit on 06-22-2004] |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:56 pm
|
|
|
Umm...
NO.
If you Silver_surfer...are looking for the FRAUDULENT POSTER USING MULTIPLE CTC IDs under the same IP. JETBLACK and PROFESSOR are the Culprits.
You threatened me? You're gone. No threats allowed in this forum.
The Webmaster Thermit, EMFX13 (Moderator), FLKook (Moderator), and Mark Sky (Moderator) all know better. NEVER have i once used an alternate name OR IP addy here.
By the way.........
"A moderator known only as Mech appeared, i.p. (xxx.xxx.xxx.xx)"
Last time I checked...my IP doesnt have a 3 digit number at the beginning...stupid.
Nice try.
BYE NOW!
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Mech on 06-22-2004] |
| |
|
|
increase 1776
Joined: 07 Oct 2000
Posts: 3097
Location: Bizzaro World |
|
Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:53 am
|
|
|
CTC must be getting on someones nerves.Throw this guy some Decon. |
| |
|
|
Bhang
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Posts: 641
Location: Classified |
|
Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:52 pm
|
|
|
Reading some of Silver_Surfer I thought we had a new and bright mindset on the board. Even if he disagrees; that's fine because it causes a good flow of topics and information. Yet it appears he is nothing more than a bitter "debunkie" with nothing better to do than slander and insult those who ask questions. I wonder if he is contracted by the current administration?
It is obvious he is either smart yet blind, or stoopid and confused.
I suggest if you read this Surfer, that you re-evauluate your stance and realize that you are not dealing with amatures nor those eaisly fooled. Just because a lot of us post information that is way in the abstract dosn't mean that we subscribe to it. Just another piece in the puzzle of the information jigsaw. I thought you actually had potential to stir things up in a positive way... now I see that those were false hopes.
The CTC vets here can see through your smokescreen and their perspective is clear. They too have the Third Eye Vision.
Nice try.
------------------
Third eye vision.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Bhang on 06-23-2004] |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 12:43 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
