From: Marc Horowitz <marc@cygnus.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 10:03:12 -0800 (PST)
To: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Subject: Re: Reflections on the Bernstein ruling
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19961220234518.006a1ef4@law.uoregon.edu>
Message-ID: <t53n2v5gmxe.fsf@rover.cygnus.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com> writes:

>> (Please keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer yet, and that my comments are
>> intended only as the reflections of an amateur and are intended as
>> discussion fodder, not legal advice.)

I'm not one either.

>> It's also unclear that Judge Patel's ruling is enough to make export of
>> crypto source legal by people/organizations located even in the Northern
>> District of CA. Venue is proper, in an ITAR case, in any jurisdiction which
>> the defense articles have moved through. (18 USC 3237(a); _US v. Durrani_
>> 659 F.Supp 1177, 1182 (D. Conn, 1987); an easy analogy is to the _US v.
>> Thomas_ "Amateur Action" case, where Tennessee venue was proper for
>> prosecution of California defendants who sent porn into Tennessee.) So it's
>> at least arguable that the feds could simply bring an ITAR prosecution in
>> another district, if exported crypto flowed through that district. (But I
>> don't think they can do so against Dan Bernstein because of "res judicata",
>> a doctrine which says that once two parties have fully litigated an issue,
>> they cannot come back to the same court - or a different one - and ask to
>> relitigate the same issue.) 

It happens to be the case that the Northern District of California
borders on the Pacific Ocean, and includes (at least) two airports
with direct flights to more crypto-friendly jurisdictions to the west.
I do not know if there are any satellite or oceanic cables similarly
situated, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Of course, the significance of this is between you and your lawyer.

		Marc