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