From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 94 22:16:21 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: AA BBS case/update
Message-ID: <9407072217.2.2741@cup.portal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


[I wrote this for CuD, but decided the issue is urgent enough to post 
it other places before the next issue comes out.  Apologies to Jim T.] 
************* 

Re File 9 of the 5 July issue of CuD,--Some thoughts on the AA BBS, 
the Advocate writes:

>Stuff about the AA BBS case.  This case is essentially a war of ideas.
>Can a backwards, pigheaded state like Tennessee set the moral and
>cultural standard of a sophisticated state like California?

So far they are making a serious attempt.

>I say not,  and like minded individuals agree with us.

I would guess that 90+ percent of the people on the net agree, but 
they don't control the federal legal and police forces. 

>These "Reagan-Jungians" need to be beaten back.  The best light is that
>of the First Amendment.  Bring the press in, point out the vital issues.

While the press has been somewhat supportive, they don't get the 
connection between *their* presses and what an adult BBS provides.  
They don't understand the need to defend on the margins *before* you 
get your heart ripped out.  ("First they came for the Pornographers . 
. .) 

>The judge will be embarrassed if the AP or Court TV is televising
>what this action is about.

Federal courts don't admit TV.  The original bust with its obvious 
frame up of the sysop was reported on local (Bay area) TV.  None of 
those involved seem to be embarrassed in the slightest.  (Though Judge 
Brazil did remove himself from the case after being accused of serious 
breaches of conduct.) 

As a follow on what I posted mid January, it turns out that 
possessing kiddy porn is not a crime in the 9th district.  The 
Excitement Video case in California ruled the law unconstitutional on 
appeal.  Newsom (the TN prosecutor) specializes in porn and must have 
been up on this landmark case.  The case was local to California, so 
the local prosecutors would have known about it as well.  It has 
always been a mystery as to why postal inspector Dirmeyer did not have 
warrant for the kiddy porn he mailed to the sysop just before he came 
in. 

We now figure they left it off on purpose because even a corrupt judge 
who knew about the EV case would not issue a warrant for something he 
knew was legal!  However, until the Supreme court rules on a case and 
unifies the law, possession of kiddy porn *is* a crime in the 6th 
district (where Tennessee is located).  So, the sysop was indicted 
*there* after being framed for possession in California!  Aside from 
the frame up, this raises the issue of:  Can someone be charged with a 
crime in a different district of the country when what they did would 
not be a crime where it was done?  The feds in Tennessee seem to think 
they can do it.  (Ah, well.  California has some odd notions of how 
far they can reach on things like sales and income taxes.)                 
                                  
>Has anyone tried contacting the Playboy Foundation or the Guccione 
>Foundation.  Contact people like Spider Robinson  or William Gibson. 
>Publicity can only help. 

Yes Playboy Foundation, no Guccione.  Playboy was marginally helpful.  
Does anyone have an address or number for any of those mentioned? 

>Especially given the candy ass tricks the prosecutors are trying out.

Right you are!  This is clearly political/religious persecution. (Does 
anyone know anything about the Conservative Caucus??)  But what the 
hell can you do when the courts ignore their own rules and cater to 
the prosecutors?  The court should dismiss this one on the speedy 
trial issue alone (40 days over the limit), but the judge has not 
ruled on several of the defendant's motions to dismiss, such as the 
NAFTA issue.  The judge and prosecutor seem determined to break the 
defendant financially.  

For example, the last time Richard Williams (the AA BBS lawyer) went 
to Memphis for a hearing, neither the judge (Gibbons) nor the 
prosecutor (Newsom) assigned to the case showed up.  All Richard could 
do was to turn around and come home with $2000 in plane fare and 
expenses down the drain.  

There is a hearing Friday, (July 8, 1994) at which the judge will ask 
Richard a single question--"are you ready for trial July 18" and to 
which he will answer "yes."  This could be accomplished by telephone, 
but the judge said "show up or else."  (Fortunately Richard was able 
to get a local lawyer to show up in his place and say "yes.")  I very 
much doubt *they* will be ready for trial, since the judge has not 
ruled on the motions in anything approaching the time allowed by court 
rules.  

My bet based on watching this business since January is that the judge 
will stall till the trial starts, rule against all motions, and start 
a trial which will be overturned on appeal just to break the AA BBS 
sysop financially.  There seems to be no rules against this vile 
misuse of judicial power--nor any forum in which you can complain. 
(Except the media--which is rather reluctant to support anyone whom 
the government has smeared with the "hot button" of child porn.) 

>Bring heat to Reno and Clinton.

I haven't got a clue as to how to do this.  I can't (and neither can 
anyone else who has tried) even reach Veronica Coleman, the local US 
Attorney, much less her boss Janet Reno.  Actually, I feel for Clinton 
because there are likely people who *do* know how to hold his feet to 
the fire.  My bet is that the NSA/CIA/FIB/XYZ knows (as someone put it 
on eff.talk) something Hillery does not. I am beginning to think that 
top politicians should fuck sheep and abuse children on live TV.  
Otherwise, those who know about their minor sins have an arm lock on 
them.  J. Edgar Hoover abused the US Presidents this way for all of 
his long career. 

>If this case is to be tried, it should be in california.

Judge Gibbons *did* rule on this one--denied.  There wouldn't *be* a 
case in California.  You can buy everything the AA BBS sysop was 
accused of selling within 10 blocks of the Federal Courthouse in San 
Francisco. 

>The Advocate.

Keith Henson  (who finds that the government disobeying the rules 
makes him itch!)