From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 07:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
To: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Commerce Department encryption rules declared   unconstitutional
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970826140833.00860dd0@pop.pipeline.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970826072016.22494B-100000@well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


This is from memory, and I'm on vacation so I don't have my notes here... 

But didn't Peter originally attempt a facial challenge, but the judge
questioned whether he had standing? Then he changed tactics to follow
Bernstein/Karn more closely and //not// mount a facial challenge... 

-Declan


On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, John Young wrote:

> Declan wrote:
> >I think that's about right. One of the important questions was how broadly
> >Patel would rule, whether her ruling would apply just to Bernstein &
> >associates or whether she would enjoin the government from enforcing
> >ITAR/EAR at all.
> >
> >Unfortunately, she chose the former. But look on the bright side: her
> >narrow decision may be less likely to be reversed, no?
> 
> Does this not shift now to Peter Junger's suit: same issues, broader
> challenge, same opposing arguments? Did Patel rule narrowly in
> Bernstein to set the stage for the broader case in the works?
> 
> BTW, is there a suit being readied to follow Peter's? Karn II? PRZ 6.0?
> 
> What say, Peter, Lee, Cindy, Phil, Phil, Anthony et al?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>