Bitcoin Forum

Khairullozhon Matanov is a 24-year-old former cab driver from Quincy, Massachusetts. The night of the Boston Marathon bombings, he ate dinner with Tamerlan and Dhzokhar Tsarnaev at a kebob restaurant in Somerville. Four days later Matanov saw photographs of his friends listed as suspects in the bombings on the CNN and FBI websites. Later that day he went to the local police. He told them that he knew the Tsarnaev brothers and that they’d had dinner together that week, but he lied about whose idea it was to have dinner, lied about when exactly he had looked at the Tsarnaevs’ photos on the Internet, lied about whether Tamerlan lived with his wife and daughter, and lied about when he and Tamerlan had last prayed together. Matanov likely lied to distance himself from the brothers or to cover up his own jihadist sympathies—or maybe he was just confused.

Then Matanov went home and cleared his Internet browser history.

Matanov continued to live in Quincy for over a year after the bombings. During this time the FBI tracked him with a drone-like surveillance plane that made loops around Quincy, disturbing residents. The feds finally arrested and indicted him in May 2014. They never alleged that Matanov was involved in the bombings or that he knew about them beforehand, but they charged him with four counts of obstruction of justice. There were three counts for making false statements based on the aforementioned lies and—remarkably—one count for destroying “any record, document or tangible object” with intent to obstruct a federal investigation. This last charge was for deleting videos on his computer that may have demonstrated his own terrorist sympathies and for clearing his browser history.

Matanov faced the possibility of decades in prison—twenty years for the records-destruction charge alone.

Federal prosecutors charged Matanov for destroying records under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a law enacted by Congress in the wake of the Enron scandal. The law was, in part, intended to prohibit corporations under federal investigation from shredding incriminating documents. But since Sarbanes-Oxley was passed in 2002 federal prosecutors have applied the law to a wider range of activities. A police officer in Colorado who falsified a report to cover up a brutality case was convicted under the act, as was a woman in Illinois who destroyed her boyfriend’s child pornography.

Prosecutors are able to apply the law broadly because they do not have to show that the person deleting evidence knew there was an investigation underway. In other words, a person could theoretically be charged under Sarbanes-Oxley for deleting her dealer’s number from her phone even if she were unaware that the feds were getting a search warrant to find her marijuana. The application of the law to digital data has been particularly far-reaching because this type of information is so easy to delete. Deleting digital data can inadvertently occur in normal computer use, and often does.

In 2010 David Kernell, a University of Tennessee student, was convicted under Sarbanes-Oxley after he deleted digital records that showed he had obtained access to Sarah Palin’s Yahoo e-mail account. Using publicly available information, Kernell answered security questions that allowed him to reset Palin’s Yahoo password to “popcorn.” He downloaded information from Palin’s account, including photographs, and posted the new password online. He then deleted digital information that may have made it easier for federal investigators to find him. Like Matanov, he cleared the cache on his Internet browser. He also uninstalled Firefox, ran a disk defragmentation program to reorganize and clean up his hard drive, and deleted a series of images that he had downloaded from the account. For entering Palin’s e-mail, he was eventually convicted of misdemeanor unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer and felony destruction of records under Sarbanes-Oxley. In January 2012, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that Kernell’s awareness of a potential investigation into his conduct was enough to uphold the felony charge.

http://www.thenation.com/article/208593/you-can-be-prosecuted-clearing-your-browser-history# (http://www.thenation.com/article/208593/you-can-be-prosecuted-clearing-your-browser-history#)

Of course, this is just for mundane little people and not the likes of Hillary who should be facing thousands of counts of obstruction for wiping untold thousands of emails off her server, which was illegal to use anyway as an official in the state dept.

Clearing is prohibited, OK. Can I be prosecuted for faking my browser history? ;D

Faking the history should be quite easy, because the most of browsers are using SQLite, JSON or XML for history storage.

No need to clear the browsing history, let browsers not to remember the browsing history ever. Firefox is the best browser to tackle these types of tactics, go to about:config, there is lot of tips and trick we can manipulate the total operation methods of browsing, such a nice engine I have ever seen in this internet world, FF is the Best and top browser among all Internet browsers.

This has me in stiches loling so hard clearing your browser history and getting prosecuted lmfao heard it all now. US need to get their stupid acts together with laws and regulations and BS biggest pile of crap I have seen  for 2015. I clean mine daily due to amount of sites I go on and how much junk it stores on system. ONLY IN AMERICA

Then you won't be able to prove that you didn't clear it.

I don't think that they would prosecute someone for this kind of thing on a regular basis.  I just think that they have a chance to throw the book at a muslim jihadist who was friends with a terrorist.  I am not saying that makes it ok, but I guess you have to be careful who your friends are.  And don't go sticking your head into the lion's mouth either.

and why should he prove something? is in US something like "the presumption of innocence" in place?

See to Snowden's situation, for example. Or simply try remember all these people, who were shot by the police officers (http://rt.com/usa/265444-lapd-justified-shooting-ford/).

Presumption of innocence de facto ceased to exist a long time ago. Currently people are guilty by default, that is the reason of mass surveillance and other idiotic actions.

Isn't the plaintiff in this case THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

"Your honor, I, the defendant, require the plaintiff to get on the stand under oath so that I can question him regarding the charges against me."

Some attorney or law enforcement person takes the oath and gets on the stand.

"Are you THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?"

No!

"Dismissed. Your honor, I, the defendant, require the plaintiff to get on the stand under oath so that I can question him regarding the charges against me."

Nobody gets on the stand, 'cause THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA can't take the oath or get on the stand. It is simply paperwork.

"Is there anyone in court who claims I did him harm or damaged his property? I require that person to come forward so I can compensate him for the harm or damage I did to him or his property."

Nobody comes forward.

"Your honor, I require this case to be dismissed for false claim filed against me, since the plaintiff would not get on the stand to testify regarding the things that I did wrong."

From http://voidjudgments.com/detailsvoid.htm:
Google "plaintiff must appear."

:)

EDIT:

The judge won't dismiss the case.

"Your honor, your name is the Honorable John Doe, correct?"

Yes. It is on my plaque, and on the paperwork of this case.

"John, I am charging you $1,000 a minute, starting now, for all the time that you postpone dismissing this frivolous case against me."

Dismissed, without prejudice, pending the 30-day limit for the plaintiff to appear and bring this case.

it's more like guilty til proven otherwise, especially if you're black or even remotely look like a muslim. the US has turned into megacity one, every cop is the judge, jury and executioner.

http://associatesmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/judgedredd_i-am-the-law-210x300.jpg

In BADecker's fantasy, a case is automatically dismissed if you can get someone to take the stand and admit they are not the United States of America, and apparently everyone in that fantasy also thinks this is relevant.   ;D  

It's the other way around. If the defendant demands it (not a demand by his attorney) the plaintiff must appear, take the oath, get on the stand, and voice the charges. There must, also be harm or damage to the plaintiff. Standard American law. But you need to use it if you want it to work for you.

:)

Reminds me of the book that came out a few years ago on how the average American commits three felonies a day under all of these new, vague laws without even knowing it. Growing-up in the 1970s we were painted a picture of life in Soviet Russia, now it seems in 2015 the US resembles that more and more every day.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/04/david-barton-explains-how-you-could-be-committing-three-felonies-a-day/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842

That's why the everyday American needs to get into common law. Common law only affects a person according to the things that are commonly done around him by the common people of his area.

If a person swings his court case into common law when he is accused of breaking any of the Code, the Code does not apply.

The courts are tricky... the judges don't generally want this to happen. This is why the whole direction that the courts try to get a common person to go, is the attorney route. Why? Because there is a contract between the attorney and the defendant. And there is a contract between the attorney and the court. Thus, the defendant has brought himself under the court and out of common law by the contract he made with the attorney.

Standing without attorney in American court, you have the right of common law. You have the right to a 7th Amendment trial. And in this trial, the plaintiff must appear, get on the stand under oath, and show how you harmed him or damaged his property. There must be impartial witness against you. And there must be evidence. If any of these is lacking, you win.

:)

Yeah, ridiculous law and very vague. Seems like a last resort to try pin something on someone when no other charges will stick.


How could they prove it was you who cleared it in the first place. I'd blame the NSA hacked into my computer and framed the charge  :D.

No need to edit about:config in Firefox just to to Tools > Options:

https://bitcoinnewsmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Capture.png

If there was a better browser than Firefox Tor Project would be using it.

Yes!

And there are loads of convictions because the defendants were befuddled, and couldn't answer the court within the 3-second time limit generally given... didn't even have enough wits in their fear to say something like, "I need more time to think about the answer."

The prisons are full of people, and the courts have made $billions for the State, simply because of befuddlement among the defendants. The real crimes are mostly the attorneys and judges, since they are all on the same side.

There is a conflict of interest in every court case where the defendant has an attorney. Why? Because all attorneys are OFFICERS OF THE COURT just to be attorneys. Big conflict of interest. An attorney's first allegiance is to the court.

The Bar Association has turned the courts in America into slave-making palaces.

:)

Unfortunately, even though some of the things that Chef Ramsay reports on are or may be questionable, many things are literally happening that are often way worse than the things he reports on.

:)

I am terrified! I will not sleep at night! lol

I don't see anything wrong with this.

The Government can clearly make a case for the suspicion of this guy if he was dining with the two of them within close timing of their terrorist acts. Also, if he deleted his internet browser they could reasonably assume he may have been tampering with evidence.

I'm glad the Government doesn't fuck around when it comes to investigating people who associate with the people who bomb a city in the US. There's zero tolerance for that kind of activity...there should always be zero tolerance for it. Peaceful protests are fine, accepted, celebrated. Violent protests should be prosecuted heavily, make an example out of people who do that stuff.

There's always an option for people who don't like those rules...they could live somewhere else, where they agree with the rules.

they can't be serious about that i mean they can't even prove if i've done it or not, chrome don't keeps hidden files if you delete everything, i think, this also led me to remember that guy that was arrested because he was offending other users in a online gameplay, i don't remember if it was counterstrike, and since then they said that everyone that will do it, would be punished by the law, now they are adding all these stupid rules for everything that they consider bad, or not good, governments it becoming a dictator and nothinv else
and going abroad to avoid such tiranny is not really that easy, also many governments act in the same way, you will not find a good place where there is enough freedom

Ridiculous sensationalism.


Even the Russian propagandists are chiming in with the usual "but look at THEM!" tripe. ::)

The fact is that the vast majority of the various laws and tenets that are supposedly "under threat" or "critically endangered" in the US are highly reliant on a feedback loop of public faith in the system. A real problem that the US could be facing is if public cynicism reaches critical mass, because then society would self-destruct under the sheer weight of cynical bullshit. "This place is going to shit anyway, so let's just ransack it and then torch it." Right?

Ironically, if US society (and the wider Western society) does finally collapse, it won't be the "dull sheep" responsible for it, but the noisy cynics who failed to see their own role in making everyone else depressed and cynical.

My question is, how the hell do they even know you cleared it, unless they have a copy of the original to compare it too?

Red is my response.

Guess we should always use incognito mode or private browsing mode in the US from now on.