[2932] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Initial summary/analysis: Junger v. Daley
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Gilmore)
Wed Jul 8 15:40:30 1998
To: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
cc: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net, cryptography@c2.net, gnu@toad.com
In-reply-to: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980707223313.20768A-100000@ideath.parrhesia.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 12:06:11 -0700
From: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>
> I think it's a shame that this case didn't
> get the careful attention that _ACLU v. Reno_ got, with detailed in-person
> testimony from experts familiar with the issues. As far as I can tell,
> Judge Gwin reached his conclusions based upon his review of the filings,
> and statements made by the attorneys at oral argument.
The case has not gotten careful attention because FEW OF YOU WERE
PAYING ATTENTION! Prof. Junger has been asking for funds and help,
and 99% of what he's gotten has come from the Bernstein team
(including myself), which has its own case to focus on. When they
have had hearings, probably nobody showed up other than the lawyers.
No wonder the judge didn't delve deeply into the issues. Prof. Junger
probably looks to the judge like a crank, filing spurious challenges
which the US government just has to yawn and bat aside.
If you don't want to get rotten rulings, you need to put in the resources
IN ADVANCE so the judge knows that someone is paying attention. So that
it's clear this guy isn't alone in the wilderness, but has lots of friends
who know and care about the issue, and agree with him.
Anybody planning to send them some money, or give them some of your
expert time, for the appeal? Anyone willing to organize on-net
outreach, and Web presence, about the case, so people will know when
there's a hearing worth showing up for? Have *you* located an expert
and convinced them to submit factual declarations for the case? You
will get whatever justice you show that you deserve.
John Gilmore
To: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
cc: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net, cryptography@c2.net, gnu
Subject: Re: Initial summary/analysis: Junger v. Daley
In-reply-to: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980707223313.20768A-100000@ideath.parrhesia.com>
> I think it's a shame that this case didn't
> get the careful attention that _ACLU v. Reno_ got, with detailed in-person
> testimony from experts familiar with the issues. As far as I can tell,
> Judge Gwin reached his conclusions based upon his review of the filings,
> and statements made by the attorneys at oral argument.
The case has not gotten careful attention because FEW OF YOU WERE
PAYING ATTENTION! Prof. Junger has been asking for funds and help,
and 99% of what he's gotten has come from the Bernstein team
(including myself), which has its own case to focus on. When they
have had hearings, probably nobody showed up other than the lawyers.
No wonder the judge didn't delve deeply into the issues. Prof. Junger
probably looks to the judge like a crank, filing spurious challenges
which the US government just has to yawn and bat aside.
If you don't want to get rotten rulings, you need to put in the resources
IN ADVANCE so the judge knows that someone is paying attention. So that
it's clear this guy isn't alone in the wilderness, but has lots of friends
who know and care about the issue, and agree with him.
Anybody planning to send them some money, or give them some of your
expert time, for the appeal? Anyone willing to organize on-net
outreach, and Web presence, about the case, so people will know when
there's a hearing worth showing up for? Have *you* located an expert
and convinced them to submit factual declarations for the case? You
will get whatever justice you show that you deserve.
John Gilmore
