Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The Fugitive Game

4 views
Skip to first unread message

agent steal

unread,
Feb 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/6/96
to

An open letter to Jon Littman:

This correspondence is regarding the overall accuracy and portrayal of
myself (Agent Steal) in your book, "The Fugitive Game". Let me begin by
summing it up in one simple phrase;

- Mealy Mouthed Nonsense -

Upon reading your book one might expect me to have such a comment. After
all you did all but completely trash me. I might have found your
descriptions of my appearance, dialogs, and actions to be comical had they
not been published in a nationally distributed book. I know that at least
my close friends had a good laugh. But all laughing and personal bias aside
you quite simply have authored a grossly inaccurate book. I should also add
that Mr. Mitnick has not lent his endorsement either. This despite your
sycophantic portrayal of him as the consummate hacker.

Before I continue with my comments I would like to make it clear that this
is not a vindicative attack on someone who has slandered me. No, this goes
much deeper than simple sticks and stones. The point I wish to make is you
have missed the mark when it comes to this story. What the hell were you
thinking? Your Poulson article was good but this is something entirely
different. You've taken an adventurous and fascinating saga and turned it
in to a sordid two bit "National Enquirer" article. On top of that you have
twisted, omitted, and blurred the facts.

Frankly I consider what you've done to not only be odious but incredibly
irresponsible. You have damaged your reputation as a serious journalist and
I would be surprised if anyone who knows the true story ever takes
seriously anything you publish.

It's common advice not to trust newsprint reporters, but I thought maybe,
just maybe, you would be different. I thought you might publish the truth
as well as the whole story.

One of the aspects that vexes me is that it was not necessary to formulate
the story in the manner you did. Merely recounting it with a well written,
well researched description of the events that transpired would have been
adequate. Perhaps your insecurities over the simultaneous release of two
competing books troubled you. Perhaps the only way you felt you could
compete with a world class N.Y. Times reporter and an insightful Rolling
Stone write was to sensationalize and slander not only myself but one of
the writers.

I will say this: I'm no angel. I've committed some sophisticated and
financially motivated computer crimes. But I am not, however, the
two-faced, heartless, career criminal you've painted me out to be. I've
always been loyal to my REAL friends, I'm not some kind of sexual deviant,
and I have always had some kind of job. But it's not my desire to debate
the details of your "novel" here and now.

As I compose this commentary I wonder if the true story will ever be told.
Does anybody really want to hear it? Is it possible you just told the
public what they wanted to hear. I've had the opportunity to discuss this
with Kevin Mitnick, as we have become friends of a sort. We are both in the
same prison. He as well as I has mixed emotions about the whole ordeal. For
now Kevin's comments are just between the two of us. But one thing is
certain: We have lost faith in the press as well as the Government.

My message to you is that you have been duped. Conned by the biggest social
engineer in your book: Mitnick. When and if he goes to trial or if someone
files a "Freedom of Information Act" request, they boy are you going to
look stupid. Or will looking stupid all the way to the bank really matter
to you? Possibly not, because that is what it appears was the objective
here. It certainly wasn't to tell the real story or even a complete story.
No, what you have written isn't laudable or plausible, just laughable and
sueable.

Yes Mr. Littman, I will see you in court. And I will see your publisher,
your agent, and anyone else involved in the profits from your slander in
court. So before you start gloating over your ability to generate my ire I
suggest you share this little commentary with your coconspirators. I would
also suggest that you not underestimate my ability, resources, or
motivation to pursue this litigation in a most effective manner.


Sincerely,

Justin Petersen
Agent Steal "The FBI's Hacker" (run amuck) ast...@primus.net

Lewcifer

unread,
Feb 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/8/96
to
agent steal (ast...@primus.net), through a buddy wrote:

: This correspondence is regarding the overall accuracy and portrayal of


: myself (Agent Steal) in your book, "The Fugitive Game". Let me begin by
: summing it up in one simple phrase; - Mealy Mouthed Nonsense -

If this post were really about the overall accuracy and portrayal of your
miserable ass in the book, "The Fugitive Game" you would have given solid
examples of said inaccuracies. Since you don't it's obviously just a
forum for you to blow some more hot air and impress little hacker boys.

: Upon reading your book one might expect me to have such a comment. After
: all you did all but completely trash me. I might have found your descrip-
: tions of my appearance, dialogs, and actions to be comical had they not


: been published in a nationally distributed book. I know that at least my
: close friends had a good laugh. But all laughing and personal bias aside
: you quite simply have authored a grossly inaccurate book. I should also
: add that Mr. Mitnick has not lent his endorsement either. This despite
: your sycophantic portrayal of him as the consummate hacker.

Actually, you completely trashed yourself. Ask either of your parents if
reality hasn't set in yet. You're a petty, low-life scumbag criminal and
informant for the FBI, and a pretty stupid one at that. You state that
your close friends "had a good laugh" at your portrayal. What you fail
to mention is that most people would have a good laugh upon seeing your
close friends. When you're not wrapping drugged-out strippers in Saran
Wrap and hanging them from the ceiling, that is.

: Before I continue with my comments I would like to make it clear that


: this is not a vindicative attack on someone who has slandered me. No,
: this goes much deeper than simple sticks and stones. The point I wish
: to make is you have missed the mark when it comes to this story. What
: the hell were you thinking? Your Poulson article was good but this is

: something entirely different. You've taken an adventurous and fascina-
: ting saga and turned it in to a sordid two bit "National Enquirer"

: article. On top of that you have twisted, omitted, and blurred the facts.

What an absolute joke. Perhaps the street life has affected your mental
faculties. You state, "this is not a vindictive attack on [...]." Of
course it isn't -- there's no solid "meat" to your attack. Hence, all
you're left with are empty words. Not even Stanley "Pinhead" Ornellas
can help you on this one. What's so "adventurous and fascinating" about
applying for fradulent Disability payments using a fake ID? What's so
interesting about ruining the life of the woman you love by getting her
plastic breasts and encouraging her to leave her office life and become
a stripper? The only glory was that which you gleaned from Poulsen,
Mitnick and myself. Other than that, you're just a spent condom.

: Frankly I consider what you've done to not only be odious but incredibly


: irresponsible. You have damaged your reputation as a serious journalist
: and I would be surprised if anyone who knows the true story ever takes
: seriously anything you publish.

Frankly, your opinion isn't worth a shit. We need not point out the
fact that you yourself said you would "sell out your own mother" to
remind ourselves what a scummy son of a bitch we're dealing with here.

: It's common advice not to trust newsprint reporters, but I thought


: maybe, just maybe, you would be different. I thought you might publish
: the truth as well as the whole story.

This just comes to show what a naieve and moronic person you really
are. He did publish the truth regarding you -- just not *your*
version of the truth.

: One of the aspects that vexes me is that it was not necessary to formu-
: late the story in the manner you did. Merely recounting it with a well


: written, well researched description of the events that transpired would
: have been adequate.

When did you first start believing he should follow your advice on how
to write a successful book? Obviously, if you had the skill to do so,
you wouldn't be sitting there on your aluminum john moaning about it.

: Perhaps your insecurities over the simultaneous release of two competing


: books troubled you. Perhaps the only way you felt you could compete with

: a world class N.Y. Times reporter and an insightful Rolling Stone writer
: was to sensationalize and slander not only myself but one of the writers.

Perhaps the only way you can feel good about yourself, and garner a false
sense of self-worth, is by playing the role of informant for the FBI and
other incompetent agencies while committing serious crimes right under
their very noses. It serves both them and you right. I shouldn't need
to point out that, in your long diatribe, you still haven't given any
examples of how you were "slandered" or otherwise misrepresented.

: I will say this: I'm no angel. I've committed some sophisticated and


: financially motivated computer crimes. But I am not, however, the two-

: tfaced, heartless, career criminal you've painted me out to be. I've


: always been loyal to my REAL friends, I'm not some kind of sexual
: deviant, and I have always had some kind of job. But it's not my
: desire to debate the details of your "novel" here and now.

Of course you're no angel... you're just an FBI informant gone bad. Not
that I blame you. After all, if the FBI gave me SAS wiretapping manuals,
a salary, and implied authority to use illegal means to catch or entrap
people, I might find it interesting. The difference is, I'd document
(audio/video) what they're having me do, and take it to the press. You
say you've always been loyal to your "REAL" friends -- somehow that
statement rings hollow. We've *ALL* been loyal to our "real" friends.
Anyone we're not loyal to, we just don't consider them real friends.
Of course you're not a sexual deviant -- it's easy to not be one; all
you do is exclude yourself from your personal definition of same. No,
you're not a sexual deviant -- you're just a dumb fuck.

: As I compose this commentary I wonder if the true story will ever be told.

Certainly not as long as you're composing commentaries or writing it.

: Does anybody really want to hear it? Is it possible you just


: told the public what they wanted to hear.

Dear incompetent person, has it ever occurred to you that the best way
to tell a story is the way the public wants to hear it? There's no
need to embellish your story -- the public enjoys freaks.

: I've had the opportunity to discuss this with Kevin Mitnick, as we


: have become friends of a sort. We are both in the same prison. He as
: well as I has mixed emotions about the whole ordeal. For now Kevin's
: comments are just between the two of us. But one thing is certain:
: We have lost faith in the press as well as the Government.

That's interesting, considering the fact that Kevin hates your guts.
In fact, he refuses to speak with you and often tells my girlfriend
(his ex-wife) about what a piece of shit you are, as does Ron Austin.
The fact that you purport to having grown close to Kevin only serves
to show what a weak and miserable little shit of a man you are, with
no backbone of your own. You'd tell people anything, to bolster your
own damaged ego. It shows how weak and scared you really are.

: My message to you is that you have been duped. Conned by the biggest


: social engineer in your book: Mitnick. When and if he goes to trial or
: if someone files a "Freedom of Information Act" request, they boy are
: you going to look stupid.

My message to you is that you have been duped. Conned by the biggest

social engineer and bullshitter around -- Justin Petersen. What's
funny is the fact that you believe your own bullshit. If Mitnick
goes to trial (with Richard G. Sherman as co-counsel), I think you
and your friends (Kenneth McGuire and Stanley Ornel of the FBI, and
Terry Atchley of PacBell Security) are the ones who will look stupid.
Heck -- what am I talking about, all of you *already* look stupid.

: Or will looking stupid all the way to the bank really matter to you?
: Possibly not, because that is what it appears was the objective here.

You really are dense, aren't you? Heaven forbid someone actually write
a book that people are *interested* in! A book that sells well! That
would be a crime, wouldn't it? Keep your mouth shut Justin... that's
something you should have learned to do a long time ago.

: It certainly wasn't to tell the real story or even a complete story.


: No, what you have written isn't laudable or plausible, just laughable
: and sueable.

Coming from a piece of shit that can't even afford counsel, I find
that to be a rather humorous statement. Do you think you can get
Moron Boren to represent you in Civil Court also?

: Yes Mr. Littman, I will see you in court. And I will see your publisher,


: your agent, and anyone else involved in the profits from your slander in
: court. So before you start gloating over your ability to generate my ire
: I suggest you share this little commentary with your coconspirators. I
: would also suggest that you not underestimate my ability, resources, or
: motivation to pursue this litigation in a most effective manner.

The only time you'll see Littman (or any other reporter) in court is
when he comes to see your court-appointed attorney argue your appeal.

: Sincerely, Justin Petersen


: Agent Steal "The FBI's Hacker" (run amuck) ast...@primus.net

and proud of it, to boot! I wonder what Terry Atchley (PacBell Security)
thinks of all this. After all, he got a front-row seat in watching the
FBI and other agencies exclude him from this case, only to completely
bumble it with their utter incompetence. I also wonder what he thinks
of Stanley Ornellas (Special Agent, FBI) giving Justin Petersen back
his SAS manuals, so he could continue to wiretap people as a means of
gathering illegal evidence for the FBI. Terry, you've been had...

--
"I think, therefore I'm free" - Lewis De Payne | Finger your girlfriend
Nonpolitical activist and general troublemaker | for my PGP key...

Ellen Kosuda

unread,
Feb 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/9/96
to


Bravo Lewis! Very well spoken!

I'd like to add that Littman's Poulsen article was NOT good. It was a piece
of shit just like Justin.

Also, the last I heard, Agent "Yahoo" Steal had been taken to a "higher-
security prison" in Texas. Justin was very freaked out about that too. Have
fun Justin. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy!

Ellen Kosuda
eko...@well.com

Aaron

unread,
Feb 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/15/96
to
Preach on Lewis!

I hope Agent Asshole makes plenty of new friends in his new home. I can't
believe he is proud of the fact thathe WAS the FBI's domesticated computer
criminal.

Justin is alot like a police k-9, they let him off the leash, after giving
him a sample of what he is searching out, until he fucked up. And now he
is locked in a cement cage to die.

0 new messages