On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 21:22:27 +0200, ©Anti-Cult® -
www.users.wineasy.se/noname/ <[email protected]>
>On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:16:17 -0400.
>In Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>From: Jeff Jacobsen <[email protected]>.
>Organization: Lightlink Internet.
>Wrote on the subject: news from Keith's case:
>> From what I hear, the jury is on lunch break, and before that had
>>asked about what parts of posts in evidence were Keith's writings and
>>what weren't. In other words, followup posts seemed to be confusing
>So, this basically means that they don't understand freedom of speech at
>Or, perhaps you aren't as free as you think over there...
No, it basically means that some lawyer didn't manage to get the whole story across. This is an extremely complex case for the uninitiated to understand, and with the exclusion of all evidence of why Keith was there, and all evidence of "fair game", extremely difficult to get any message across to the jury. Not explaining usenet quoting conventions to the jury is an oversight that even I would have forgotten to do had I been the lawyer. In this case, I'm sure the lawyer didn't have the knowledge to even have understood it. Hopefully, the jury comes back hung, the case gets refiled, and, next time, things like this don't get lost in the swamp. The problem with this case has always been the EXCLUSION of any evidence for the defense (because telling the truth would be "prejudicial" against a "religion"). The "lead" lawyer has been Ableson, using the DA's office as a cult "front group". Anyone have any ideas why they would use an experienced mob lawyer for their key lawyer in this case? Anyone who has any interest in cleaning up the criminal and murderous cult should be VERY concerned about this case. If the cult wins, we're all next, on the same charges, with the results of this case being the "evidence". One MAJOR point that they've managed to stress here is that Keith "takes pictures" and "gets license plate numbers". The fact that he takes pictures of people stalking him, and plate numbers of them in order to find out if the stalking is legal or not can't be questioned, because THAT would go to the question of "fair game", which, of course, the cult "doesn't practice any more", and anyway "they never did that". - Brent