- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Abortion Assasination Politics likely going to Supremes
by A. Melon 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> > So when is APster coming out, which lets > you trade lists of deserving people? > > > > Tuesday September 12 5:11 AM ET > Abortion Web Site Verdict Appealed > > By WILLIAM McCALL, Associated Press Writer > > PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Anti-abortion activists are > asking a federal appeals court to overturn a $109 million > verdict by a jury that decided a Web site and posters listing > the names of abortion doctors and clinics were threats that > went beyond free speech. > > The case is widely seen as a test of a Supreme Court ruling that defined a threat as > explicit language likely to cause imminent lawless action - and a measure of how > far anti-abortion activists can go in harrying doctors and clinics. > > Oral arguments in the appeal are scheduled Tuesday before a panel of the 9th U.S. > Circuit Court of Appeals. > > At issue is a Web site called The Nuremberg Files that listed hundreds of abortion > doctors accused of committing crimes against humanity and invited readers to > send in doctors addresses, license plate numbers and even the names of their > children. > > Last year, the dozen anti-abortion activists argued the posters and Web site were > free speech protected under the First Amendment. Critics called it a hit list. > > The jury was told by U.S. District Judge Robert Jones to consider the history of > violence in the anti-abortion movement, including three doctors killed after their > names appeared on the lists. > > One was Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was gunned down by a sniper in October 1998 at > his home near Buffalo, N.Y. Slepians name was crossed out on The Nuremberg > Files Web site later that day. > > In 1995, Planned Parenthood and four doctors sued the anti-abortion activists under > federal racketeering statutes and the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances > Act, which makes it illegal to incite violence against abortion doctors and their > patients. > > Jones told the jury the Wanted-style posters and Web site were not free speech if > a reasonable person could perceive them as threats. > > But a number of legal experts have criticized the February 1999 jury verdict and > those instructions, saying a threat must be explicit. > > If youre looking for a case likely to go to the Supreme Court, this is one, said Lee > Tornquist, a law professor who specializes in the First Amendment at Willamette > University in Salem, Ore. > > Others consider the jury decision sound. > > Margie Kelly, spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy in > New York, said Jones correctly told the jury to weigh any threat in context. > > This is a case that is built on history, Kelly said. You have had years of arson, > shootings, death threats. How can that context be considered anything but a threat? > > The Georgia computer programmer who ran the Nuremberg Files was not a > defendant in the lawsuit. After the verdict, his Internet provider pulled the plug on > the site. > > Among the anti-abortion activists appealing the ruling is Michael Bray of Bowie, > Md., author of a book that justifies killing doctors to stop abortions. Bray served > time in federal prison from 1985 to 1989 for his role in arson attacks and bombings > of seven clinics. > >

1 0

Abortion Assasination Politics likely going to Supremes
by A. Melon 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> > So when is APster coming out, which lets > you trade lists of deserving people? > > > > Tuesday September 12 5:11 AM ET > Abortion Web Site Verdict Appealed > > By WILLIAM McCALL, Associated Press Writer > > PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Anti-abortion activists are > asking a federal appeals court to overturn a $109 million > verdict by a jury that decided a Web site and posters listing > the names of abortion doctors and clinics were threats that > went beyond free speech. > > The case is widely seen as a test of a Supreme Court ruling that defined a threat as > explicit language likely to cause imminent lawless action - and a measure of how > far anti-abortion activists can go in harrying doctors and clinics. > > Oral arguments in the appeal are scheduled Tuesday before a panel of the 9th U.S. > Circuit Court of Appeals. > > At issue is a Web site called The Nuremberg Files that listed hundreds of abortion > doctors accused of committing crimes against humanity and invited readers to > send in doctors addresses, license plate numbers and even the names of their > children. > > Last year, the dozen anti-abortion activists argued the posters and Web site were > free speech protected under the First Amendment. Critics called it a hit list. > > The jury was told by U.S. District Judge Robert Jones to consider the history of > violence in the anti-abortion movement, including three doctors killed after their > names appeared on the lists. > > One was Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was gunned down by a sniper in October 1998 at > his home near Buffalo, N.Y. Slepians name was crossed out on The Nuremberg > Files Web site later that day. > > In 1995, Planned Parenthood and four doctors sued the anti-abortion activists under > federal racketeering statutes and the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances > Act, which makes it illegal to incite violence against abortion doctors and their > patients. > > Jones told the jury the Wanted-style posters and Web site were not free speech if > a reasonable person could perceive them as threats. > > But a number of legal experts have criticized the February 1999 jury verdict and > those instructions, saying a threat must be explicit. > > If youre looking for a case likely to go to the Supreme Court, this is one, said Lee > Tornquist, a law professor who specializes in the First Amendment at Willamette > University in Salem, Ore. > > Others consider the jury decision sound. > > Margie Kelly, spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy in > New York, said Jones correctly told the jury to weigh any threat in context. > > This is a case that is built on history, Kelly said. You have had years of arson, > shootings, death threats. How can that context be considered anything but a threat? > > The Georgia computer programmer who ran the Nuremberg Files was not a > defendant in the lawsuit. After the verdict, his Internet provider pulled the plug on > the site. > > Among the anti-abortion activists appealing the ruling is Michael Bray of Bowie, > Md., author of a book that justifies killing doctors to stop abortions. Bray served > time in federal prison from 1985 to 1989 for his role in arson attacks and bombings > of seven clinics. > >

1 0

Abortion Assasination Politics likely going to Supremes
by A. Melon 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> > So when is APster coming out, which lets > you trade lists of deserving people? > > > > Tuesday September 12 5:11 AM ET > Abortion Web Site Verdict Appealed > > By WILLIAM McCALL, Associated Press Writer > > PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Anti-abortion activists are > asking a federal appeals court to overturn a $109 million > verdict by a jury that decided a Web site and posters listing > the names of abortion doctors and clinics were threats that > went beyond free speech. > > The case is widely seen as a test of a Supreme Court ruling that defined a threat as > explicit language likely to cause imminent lawless action - and a measure of how > far anti-abortion activists can go in harrying doctors and clinics. > > Oral arguments in the appeal are scheduled Tuesday before a panel of the 9th U.S. > Circuit Court of Appeals. > > At issue is a Web site called The Nuremberg Files that listed hundreds of abortion > doctors accused of committing crimes against humanity and invited readers to > send in doctors addresses, license plate numbers and even the names of their > children. > > Last year, the dozen anti-abortion activists argued the posters and Web site were > free speech protected under the First Amendment. Critics called it a hit list. > > The jury was told by U.S. District Judge Robert Jones to consider the history of > violence in the anti-abortion movement, including three doctors killed after their > names appeared on the lists. > > One was Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was gunned down by a sniper in October 1998 at > his home near Buffalo, N.Y. Slepians name was crossed out on The Nuremberg > Files Web site later that day. > > In 1995, Planned Parenthood and four doctors sued the anti-abortion activists under > federal racketeering statutes and the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances > Act, which makes it illegal to incite violence against abortion doctors and their > patients. > > Jones told the jury the Wanted-style posters and Web site were not free speech if > a reasonable person could perceive them as threats. > > But a number of legal experts have criticized the February 1999 jury verdict and > those instructions, saying a threat must be explicit. > > If youre looking for a case likely to go to the Supreme Court, this is one, said Lee > Tornquist, a law professor who specializes in the First Amendment at Willamette > University in Salem, Ore. > > Others consider the jury decision sound. > > Margie Kelly, spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy in > New York, said Jones correctly told the jury to weigh any threat in context. > > This is a case that is built on history, Kelly said. You have had years of arson, > shootings, death threats. How can that context be considered anything but a threat? > > The Georgia computer programmer who ran the Nuremberg Files was not a > defendant in the lawsuit. After the verdict, his Internet provider pulled the plug on > the site. > > Among the anti-abortion activists appealing the ruling is Michael Bray of Bowie, > Md., author of a book that justifies killing doctors to stop abortions. Bray served > time in federal prison from 1985 to 1989 for his role in arson attacks and bombings > of seven clinics. > >

1 0

Abortion Assasination Politics likely going to Supremes
by A. Melon 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> > So when is APster coming out, which lets > you trade lists of deserving people? > > > > Tuesday September 12 5:11 AM ET > Abortion Web Site Verdict Appealed > > By WILLIAM McCALL, Associated Press Writer > > PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Anti-abortion activists are > asking a federal appeals court to overturn a $109 million > verdict by a jury that decided a Web site and posters listing > the names of abortion doctors and clinics were threats that > went beyond free speech. > > The case is widely seen as a test of a Supreme Court ruling that defined a threat as > explicit language likely to cause imminent lawless action - and a measure of how > far anti-abortion activists can go in harrying doctors and clinics. > > Oral arguments in the appeal are scheduled Tuesday before a panel of the 9th U.S. > Circuit Court of Appeals. > > At issue is a Web site called The Nuremberg Files that listed hundreds of abortion > doctors accused of committing crimes against humanity and invited readers to > send in doctors addresses, license plate numbers and even the names of their > children. > > Last year, the dozen anti-abortion activists argued the posters and Web site were > free speech protected under the First Amendment. Critics called it a hit list. > > The jury was told by U.S. District Judge Robert Jones to consider the history of > violence in the anti-abortion movement, including three doctors killed after their > names appeared on the lists. > > One was Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was gunned down by a sniper in October 1998 at > his home near Buffalo, N.Y. Slepians name was crossed out on The Nuremberg > Files Web site later that day. > > In 1995, Planned Parenthood and four doctors sued the anti-abortion activists under > federal racketeering statutes and the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances > Act, which makes it illegal to incite violence against abortion doctors and their > patients. > > Jones told the jury the Wanted-style posters and Web site were not free speech if > a reasonable person could perceive them as threats. > > But a number of legal experts have criticized the February 1999 jury verdict and > those instructions, saying a threat must be explicit. > > If youre looking for a case likely to go to the Supreme Court, this is one, said Lee > Tornquist, a law professor who specializes in the First Amendment at Willamette > University in Salem, Ore. > > Others consider the jury decision sound. > > Margie Kelly, spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy in > New York, said Jones correctly told the jury to weigh any threat in context. > > This is a case that is built on history, Kelly said. You have had years of arson, > shootings, death threats. How can that context be considered anything but a threat? > > The Georgia computer programmer who ran the Nuremberg Files was not a > defendant in the lawsuit. After the verdict, his Internet provider pulled the plug on > the site. > > Among the anti-abortion activists appealing the ruling is Michael Bray of Bowie, > Md., author of a book that justifies killing doctors to stop abortions. Bray served > time in federal prison from 1985 to 1989 for his role in arson attacks and bombings > of seven clinics. > >

1 0

Abortion Assasination Politics likely going to Supremes
by A. Melon 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> > So when is APster coming out, which lets > you trade lists of deserving people? > > > > Tuesday September 12 5:11 AM ET > Abortion Web Site Verdict Appealed > > By WILLIAM McCALL, Associated Press Writer > > PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Anti-abortion activists are > asking a federal appeals court to overturn a $109 million > verdict by a jury that decided a Web site and posters listing > the names of abortion doctors and clinics were threats that > went beyond free speech. > > The case is widely seen as a test of a Supreme Court ruling that defined a threat as > explicit language likely to cause imminent lawless action - and a measure of how > far anti-abortion activists can go in harrying doctors and clinics. > > Oral arguments in the appeal are scheduled Tuesday before a panel of the 9th U.S. > Circuit Court of Appeals. > > At issue is a Web site called The Nuremberg Files that listed hundreds of abortion > doctors accused of committing crimes against humanity and invited readers to > send in doctors addresses, license plate numbers and even the names of their > children. > > Last year, the dozen anti-abortion activists argued the posters and Web site were > free speech protected under the First Amendment. Critics called it a hit list. > > The jury was told by U.S. District Judge Robert Jones to consider the history of > violence in the anti-abortion movement, including three doctors killed after their > names appeared on the lists. > > One was Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was gunned down by a sniper in October 1998 at > his home near Buffalo, N.Y. Slepians name was crossed out on The Nuremberg > Files Web site later that day. > > In 1995, Planned Parenthood and four doctors sued the anti-abortion activists under > federal racketeering statutes and the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances > Act, which makes it illegal to incite violence against abortion doctors and their > patients. > > Jones told the jury the Wanted-style posters and Web site were not free speech if > a reasonable person could perceive them as threats. > > But a number of legal experts have criticized the February 1999 jury verdict and > those instructions, saying a threat must be explicit. > > If youre looking for a case likely to go to the Supreme Court, this is one, said Lee > Tornquist, a law professor who specializes in the First Amendment at Willamette > University in Salem, Ore. > > Others consider the jury decision sound. > > Margie Kelly, spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy in > New York, said Jones correctly told the jury to weigh any threat in context. > > This is a case that is built on history, Kelly said. You have had years of arson, > shootings, death threats. How can that context be considered anything but a threat? > > The Georgia computer programmer who ran the Nuremberg Files was not a > defendant in the lawsuit. After the verdict, his Internet provider pulled the plug on > the site. > > Among the anti-abortion activists appealing the ruling is Michael Bray of Bowie, > Md., author of a book that justifies killing doctors to stop abortions. Bray served > time in federal prison from 1985 to 1989 for his role in arson attacks and bombings > of seven clinics. > >

1 0

Abortion Assasination Politics likely going to Supremes
by A. Melon 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> > So when is APster coming out, which lets > you trade lists of deserving people? > > > > Tuesday September 12 5:11 AM ET > Abortion Web Site Verdict Appealed > > By WILLIAM McCALL, Associated Press Writer > > PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Anti-abortion activists are > asking a federal appeals court to overturn a $109 million > verdict by a jury that decided a Web site and posters listing > the names of abortion doctors and clinics were threats that > went beyond free speech. > > The case is widely seen as a test of a Supreme Court ruling that defined a threat as > explicit language likely to cause imminent lawless action - and a measure of how > far anti-abortion activists can go in harrying doctors and clinics. > > Oral arguments in the appeal are scheduled Tuesday before a panel of the 9th U.S. > Circuit Court of Appeals. > > At issue is a Web site called The Nuremberg Files that listed hundreds of abortion > doctors accused of committing crimes against humanity and invited readers to > send in doctors addresses, license plate numbers and even the names of their > children. > > Last year, the dozen anti-abortion activists argued the posters and Web site were > free speech protected under the First Amendment. Critics called it a hit list. > > The jury was told by U.S. District Judge Robert Jones to consider the history of > violence in the anti-abortion movement, including three doctors killed after their > names appeared on the lists. > > One was Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was gunned down by a sniper in October 1998 at > his home near Buffalo, N.Y. Slepians name was crossed out on The Nuremberg > Files Web site later that day. > > In 1995, Planned Parenthood and four doctors sued the anti-abortion activists under > federal racketeering statutes and the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances > Act, which makes it illegal to incite violence against abortion doctors and their > patients. > > Jones told the jury the Wanted-style posters and Web site were not free speech if > a reasonable person could perceive them as threats. > > But a number of legal experts have criticized the February 1999 jury verdict and > those instructions, saying a threat must be explicit. > > If youre looking for a case likely to go to the Supreme Court, this is one, said Lee > Tornquist, a law professor who specializes in the First Amendment at Willamette > University in Salem, Ore. > > Others consider the jury decision sound. > > Margie Kelly, spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy in > New York, said Jones correctly told the jury to weigh any threat in context. > > This is a case that is built on history, Kelly said. You have had years of arson, > shootings, death threats. How can that context be considered anything but a threat? > > The Georgia computer programmer who ran the Nuremberg Files was not a > defendant in the lawsuit. After the verdict, his Internet provider pulled the plug on > the site. > > Among the anti-abortion activists appealing the ruling is Michael Bray of Bowie, > Md., author of a book that justifies killing doctors to stop abortions. Bray served > time in federal prison from 1985 to 1989 for his role in arson attacks and bombings > of seven clinics. > >

1 0

Abortion Assasination Politics likely going to Supremes
by A. Melon 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> > So when is APster coming out, which lets > you trade lists of deserving people? > > > > Tuesday September 12 5:11 AM ET > Abortion Web Site Verdict Appealed > > By WILLIAM McCALL, Associated Press Writer > > PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Anti-abortion activists are > asking a federal appeals court to overturn a $109 million > verdict by a jury that decided a Web site and posters listing > the names of abortion doctors and clinics were threats that > went beyond free speech. > > The case is widely seen as a test of a Supreme Court ruling that defined a threat as > explicit language likely to cause imminent lawless action - and a measure of how > far anti-abortion activists can go in harrying doctors and clinics. > > Oral arguments in the appeal are scheduled Tuesday before a panel of the 9th U.S. > Circuit Court of Appeals. > > At issue is a Web site called The Nuremberg Files that listed hundreds of abortion > doctors accused of committing crimes against humanity and invited readers to > send in doctors addresses, license plate numbers and even the names of their > children. > > Last year, the dozen anti-abortion activists argued the posters and Web site were > free speech protected under the First Amendment. Critics called it a hit list. > > The jury was told by U.S. District Judge Robert Jones to consider the history of > violence in the anti-abortion movement, including three doctors killed after their > names appeared on the lists. > > One was Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was gunned down by a sniper in October 1998 at > his home near Buffalo, N.Y. Slepians name was crossed out on The Nuremberg > Files Web site later that day. > > In 1995, Planned Parenthood and four doctors sued the anti-abortion activists under > federal racketeering statutes and the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances > Act, which makes it illegal to incite violence against abortion doctors and their > patients. > > Jones told the jury the Wanted-style posters and Web site were not free speech if > a reasonable person could perceive them as threats. > > But a number of legal experts have criticized the February 1999 jury verdict and > those instructions, saying a threat must be explicit. > > If youre looking for a case likely to go to the Supreme Court, this is one, said Lee > Tornquist, a law professor who specializes in the First Amendment at Willamette > University in Salem, Ore. > > Others consider the jury decision sound. > > Margie Kelly, spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy in > New York, said Jones correctly told the jury to weigh any threat in context. > > This is a case that is built on history, Kelly said. You have had years of arson, > shootings, death threats. How can that context be considered anything but a threat? > > The Georgia computer programmer who ran the Nuremberg Files was not a > defendant in the lawsuit. After the verdict, his Internet provider pulled the plug on > the site. > > Among the anti-abortion activists appealing the ruling is Michael Bray of Bowie, > Md., author of a book that justifies killing doctors to stop abortions. Bray served > time in federal prison from 1985 to 1989 for his role in arson attacks and bombings > of seven clinics. > >

1 0

Abortion Assasination Politics likely going to Supremes
by A. Melon 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> > So when is APster coming out, which lets > you trade lists of deserving people? > > > > Tuesday September 12 5:11 AM ET > Abortion Web Site Verdict Appealed > > By WILLIAM McCALL, Associated Press Writer > > PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Anti-abortion activists are > asking a federal appeals court to overturn a $109 million > verdict by a jury that decided a Web site and posters listing > the names of abortion doctors and clinics were threats that > went beyond free speech. > > The case is widely seen as a test of a Supreme Court ruling that defined a threat as > explicit language likely to cause imminent lawless action - and a measure of how > far anti-abortion activists can go in harrying doctors and clinics. > > Oral arguments in the appeal are scheduled Tuesday before a panel of the 9th U.S. > Circuit Court of Appeals. > > At issue is a Web site called The Nuremberg Files that listed hundreds of abortion > doctors accused of committing crimes against humanity and invited readers to > send in doctors addresses, license plate numbers and even the names of their > children. > > Last year, the dozen anti-abortion activists argued the posters and Web site were > free speech protected under the First Amendment. Critics called it a hit list. > > The jury was told by U.S. District Judge Robert Jones to consider the history of > violence in the anti-abortion movement, including three doctors killed after their > names appeared on the lists. > > One was Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was gunned down by a sniper in October 1998 at > his home near Buffalo, N.Y. Slepians name was crossed out on The Nuremberg > Files Web site later that day. > > In 1995, Planned Parenthood and four doctors sued the anti-abortion activists under > federal racketeering statutes and the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances > Act, which makes it illegal to incite violence against abortion doctors and their > patients. > > Jones told the jury the Wanted-style posters and Web site were not free speech if > a reasonable person could perceive them as threats. > > But a number of legal experts have criticized the February 1999 jury verdict and > those instructions, saying a threat must be explicit. > > If youre looking for a case likely to go to the Supreme Court, this is one, said Lee > Tornquist, a law professor who specializes in the First Amendment at Willamette > University in Salem, Ore. > > Others consider the jury decision sound. > > Margie Kelly, spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy in > New York, said Jones correctly told the jury to weigh any threat in context. > > This is a case that is built on history, Kelly said. You have had years of arson, > shootings, death threats. How can that context be considered anything but a threat? > > The Georgia computer programmer who ran the Nuremberg Files was not a > defendant in the lawsuit. After the verdict, his Internet provider pulled the plug on > the site. > > Among the anti-abortion activists appealing the ruling is Michael Bray of Bowie, > Md., author of a book that justifies killing doctors to stop abortions. Bray served > time in federal prison from 1985 to 1989 for his role in arson attacks and bombings > of seven clinics. > >

1 0

RE: Costs of Money Laundering Enforcement
by Astengo, F. (Fabrizio) 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Hi Robert, Have the link here, but after further reading of the section, it would seem that it was not really your article, just a quote of it. I simply read the top section and assumed it was yourself replying to the comments, but after further analysis it would seem not. Heres the link anyways: <http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/JIBC/9703-12.htm>http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/JIBC/9703-12.htm Im still trying to source this doc, and quote from that page: " From: Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> To: Multiple recipients of <e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com> On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 mfarncombe(a)cc.ernsty.co.uk wrote: " (This is of course the section I missed :-) ) If you are aware, would I contact Black Unicorn or MFarncombe in this regard? Im still not too clear who is replying to whom on the article. Thanking you Fabrizio Astengo -----Original Message----- From: R.A. Hettinga [<mailto:rah@shipwright.com>mailto:rah@shipwright.com] Sent: 20 December 2004 14:54 To: Astengo, F. (Fabrizio) Subject: Re: Costs of Money Laundering Enforcement At 10:56 AM +0200 12/20/04, Astengo, F. (Fabrizio) wrote: >Was reading an article on the web where you made reference to: Send me the link, it might help. Cheers, RAH -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <<http://www.ibuc.com/>http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' Nedbank Limited Reg No 1951/000009/06 Directors: WAM Clewlow (Chairman) Prof MM Katz (Vice-chairman) ML Ndlovu (Vice-chairman) TH Nyasulu (Vice-chairman) TA Boardman (Chief Executive) CJW Ball MWT Brown RG Cottrell BE Davison N Dennis+ Prof B Figaji MJ Levett JB Magwaza ME Mkwanazi PF Nhleko JVF Roberts+ CML Savage JH Sutcliffe+ (+British) Company Secretary: GS Nienaber 01.07.2004 This email and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential and proprietary information. This information is private and protected by law and, accordingly, if you are not the intended recipient, you are requested to delete this entire communication immediately and are notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of or taking any action based on this information is prohibited. Emails cannot be guaranteed to be secure or free of errors or viruses. The sender does not accept any liability or responsibility for any interception, corruption, destruction, loss, late arrival or incompleteness of or tampering or interference with any of the information contained in this email or for its incorrect delivery or non-delivery for whatsoever reason or for its effect on any electronic device of the recipient. If verification of this email or any attachment is required, please request a hard-copy version. --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Abortion Assasination Politics likely going to Supremes
by A. Melon 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> > So when is APster coming out, which lets > you trade lists of deserving people? > > > > Tuesday September 12 5:11 AM ET > Abortion Web Site Verdict Appealed > > By WILLIAM McCALL, Associated Press Writer > > PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Anti-abortion activists are > asking a federal appeals court to overturn a $109 million > verdict by a jury that decided a Web site and posters listing > the names of abortion doctors and clinics were threats that > went beyond free speech. > > The case is widely seen as a test of a Supreme Court ruling that defined a threat as > explicit language likely to cause imminent lawless action - and a measure of how > far anti-abortion activists can go in harrying doctors and clinics. > > Oral arguments in the appeal are scheduled Tuesday before a panel of the 9th U.S. > Circuit Court of Appeals. > > At issue is a Web site called The Nuremberg Files that listed hundreds of abortion > doctors accused of committing crimes against humanity and invited readers to > send in doctors addresses, license plate numbers and even the names of their > children. > > Last year, the dozen anti-abortion activists argued the posters and Web site were > free speech protected under the First Amendment. Critics called it a hit list. > > The jury was told by U.S. District Judge Robert Jones to consider the history of > violence in the anti-abortion movement, including three doctors killed after their > names appeared on the lists. > > One was Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was gunned down by a sniper in October 1998 at > his home near Buffalo, N.Y. Slepians name was crossed out on The Nuremberg > Files Web site later that day. > > In 1995, Planned Parenthood and four doctors sued the anti-abortion activists under > federal racketeering statutes and the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances > Act, which makes it illegal to incite violence against abortion doctors and their > patients. > > Jones told the jury the Wanted-style posters and Web site were not free speech if > a reasonable person could perceive them as threats. > > But a number of legal experts have criticized the February 1999 jury verdict and > those instructions, saying a threat must be explicit. > > If youre looking for a case likely to go to the Supreme Court, this is one, said Lee > Tornquist, a law professor who specializes in the First Amendment at Willamette > University in Salem, Ore. > > Others consider the jury decision sound. > > Margie Kelly, spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy in > New York, said Jones correctly told the jury to weigh any threat in context. > > This is a case that is built on history, Kelly said. You have had years of arson, > shootings, death threats. How can that context be considered anything but a threat? > > The Georgia computer programmer who ran the Nuremberg Files was not a > defendant in the lawsuit. After the verdict, his Internet provider pulled the plug on > the site. > > Among the anti-abortion activists appealing the ruling is Michael Bray of Bowie, > Md., author of a book that justifies killing doctors to stop abortions. Bray served > time in federal prison from 1985 to 1989 for his role in arson attacks and bombings > of seven clinics. > >

1 0