Time: Mon Oct 28 22:17:26 1996
To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: LLAW: Net - speak - illegal
Cc: 
Bcc: 

At 08:23 PM 10/28/96 -0800, you wrote:
>=======================================================================
>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>=======================================================================
>Joseph, et al.,
>
>Well if you buy into the theory that immunity is impenetrable, I guess you
>have no recourse but out and out stamping out the rebellion that the
>ursurpers seem committed to.
>
>Otherwise, your remedy at this point is TRY LIKE HELL to overcome immunity
>that can be shown to be against the interest of the Republic.
>
>Sadly, you must fight the system, leave the system, or live with the system.
>I can think of no other alternatives.
>
>~Tom Clark

A major challenge to judicial
immunity was rejected by the
Supreme Court of the United States
in Hawks v. County of Butte et al.,
in the winter of 1996.  I can share
those briefs here, upon request.
There are a ton of them, however.

/s/ Paul Mitchell


>
>>TO: Counselors - all
>>From: Joseph Dale Robertson
>>Subject: Net - speak - illegal
>>
>>
>>Counselors - all:
>>
>>RePost of report on 19 year old being criminally prosecuted for his
>>"joke" on the net. Your comments on the following would be appreciated.
>>Is this a new class of creative criminal (prostitutorial) law called
>>"Communication terrorism"? 
>>
>>Constitutionally,
>>Joseph Dale Robertson
>>
>>Read and weap!!!
>>
>>=========================================================
>>
>>Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
>>Subject: Teen jailed for posting joke
>>From: Thomas Armagost (sputnik@pe.net)
>>Date: 26 July 1996
>>Message-ID: <4tbmtc$6g1@magnolia.pe.net>
>>
>>In the Los Angeles Times Archives [http://www.latimes.com], I found a
>>front page article of May 25, 1996 titled _Student Charged With Online
>>Terrorist Threat_ by staff writer Amy Harmon.  The gist of it is...
>>
>>Jose Saavedra, a freshman working his way through college at an
>>electronics shop, spent 16 days in the El Paso, Texas, county jail
>>after getting busted for allegedly threatening the life of California
>>state Sen. Tim Leslie (R-Carnelian Bay) in two usenet posts.  Soon
>>thereafter in California, the Sacramento County district attorney's
>>office began extradition proceedings to bring Mr. Saavedra to trial in
>>California.  He could be imprisoned 3 years and fined $5,000 if
>>convicted.
>>
>>Describing the usenet posts as a "death threat," Sen. Leslie stated
>>his belief that they could have incited others to commit violent
>>actions against the politician.  Mr. Saavedra's messages were similar
>>in style to many of the flames commonly found on usenet.  According to
>>netheads, the posts' content amounted to nothing more than a rather
>>obvious sophomoric joke.
>>
>>The full text of the usenet messages containing the alleged terrorist
>>threat is available on the home page of SAFE, an anti-censorship
>>organization [http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/home.html].
>>
>>Private attorney Mike Gibson of El Paso will represent the 19 year old
>>pro bono.  The ACLU is at present fighting the extradition and will
>>serve as Mr. Saavedra's co-counsel in Sacramento if necessary.
>>Periodic updates of this case can be found at the ACLU website
>>[http://www.aclu.org], in the area devoted to cyber-liberties.
>>
>>What bothers me about this case: even if the good guys win, and I'm
>>almost certain they will, Jose will have cooled his heels in the
>>slammer 16 days.  He'll be far behind in school and at his place of
>>employ after the ordeal of the trial is over, assuming he hasn't been
>>expelled and/or fired by then.  I'm wondering: how many more cases of
>>this kind will befall other internet users?
>>
>>Correct me if I'm wrong...  There is apparently no easy way to elicit
>>a court ruling, the result of which would be judges would regard this
>>type of arrest and trial as harassment.  A false arrest lawsuit
>>following an innocent verdict is not an option, unless I'm in error.
>>
>>My choice of biased words such as "teen" and "jailed for posting joke"
>>has been strictly intentional, a counterspin to the L.A. Times
>>article's point of view, which I thought to be somewhat skewed against
>>Mr. Saavedra.  Now you know why I've used the word "alleged" so often.
>>Ms. Harmon didn't use it often enough, IMHO.
>>
>>I sent a different version of this post to misc.writing over a week
>>ago.  The resultant 20+ message long thread is available at DejaNews
>>[http://www.dejanews.com].  Feel free to crosspost your followup to
>>misc.writing.
>>
>>[end of repost]
>>
>>
>>Feel free to crosspost your followup to alt.internet.media-coverage
>>as well.
>>
>>Tallyho,
>>Thomas Armagost
>>a.k.a Harry Claude Cat
>>
>> ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
>> Posted by Andrew Oram  - andyo@ora.com - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS
>>   A CPSR Project -- http://www.cpsr.org -- cpsr@cpsr.org
>>   Cyber-Rights:  http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/
>>                  ftp://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/
>>   CyberJournal:  (WWW or FTP) --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore
>> Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use.
>> ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
>>
>>
>
>
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail