=> Federal Criminal Indictment for Violating MySpace TOS <= Mom indicted in deadly MySpace hoax
_ Prof. Jonez _
Thursday for her alleged role in perpetrating a hoax on the online social
network MySpace against a 13-year-old neighbor who committed suicide.
Megan Meier, 13, hanged herself in her bedroom after being targeted in a MySpace
hoax.
Lori Drew of suburban St. Louis is said to have helped create a false-identity
MySpace account to contact Megan Meier, who thought she was chatting with a
16-year-old boy named Josh Evans. Josh didn't exist.
Megan hanged herself at home in October 2006 after receiving cruel messages,
including one stating the world would be better off without her.
Salvador Hernandez, assistant agent in charge of the Los Angeles FBI office,
called the case heart-rending.
"The Internet is a world unto itself. People must know how far they can go
before they must stop. They exploited a young girl's weaknesses," Hernandez
said. "Whether the defendant could have foreseen the results, she's responsible
for her actions."
Drew was charged with one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing
protected computers without authorization to get information used to inflict
emotional distress on the girl.
Drew has denied creating the account or sending messages to Megan.
U.S. Attorney Thomas P. O'Brien said this was the first time the federal statute
on accessing protected computers has been used in a social-networking case. It
has been used in the past to address hacking.
"This was a tragedy that did not have to happen," O'Brien said.
Both the girl and MySpace are named as victims in the case, he said.
Don't Miss
a.. Read the indictment (pdf)
MySpace is a subsidiary of Beverly Hills, California-based Fox Interactive Media
Inc., which is owned by News Corp. The indictment noted that MySpace computer
servers are located in Los Angeles County.
Due to juvenile privacy rules, the U.S. attorney's office said, the indictment
refers to the girl as M.T.M.
FBI agents in St. Louis and Los Angeles investigated the case, Hernandez said.
Each of the four counts carries a maximum possible penalty of five years in
prison.
Drew will be arraigned in St. Louis and then moved to Los Angeles for trial.
The indictment says MySpace members agree to abide by terms of service that
include, among other things, not promoting information they know to be false or
misleading; soliciting personal information from anyone under age 18 and not
using information gathered from the Web site to "harass, abuse or harm other
people."
Drew and others who were not named conspired to violate the service terms from
about September 2006 to mid-October that year, according to the indictment. It
alleges that they registered as a MySpace member under a phony name and used the
account to obtain information on the girl.
Drew and her coconspirators "used the information obtained over the MySpace
computer system to torment, harass, humiliate, and embarrass the juvenile
MySpace member," the indictment charged.
After the girl killed herself, Drew and the others deleted the information for
the account, the indictment said.
Last month, an employee of Drew's, 19-year-old Ashley Grills, told ABC's "Good
Morning America" that she created the false MySpace profile but that Drew wrote
some of the messages to Megan.
Grills said Drew suggested talking to Megan via the Internet to find out what
Megan was saying about Drew's daughter, who was a former friend.
Grills also said she wrote the message to Megan about the world being a better
place without her. The message was supposed to end the online relationship with
"Josh" because Grills felt the joke had gone too far.
"I was trying to get her angry so she would leave him alone and I could get rid
of the whole MySpace," Grills told the morning show.
Megan's death was investigated by Missouri authorities, but no state charges
were filed because no laws appeared to apply to the case
_ Prof. Jonez _
jerry warner
"_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote:
> [Image]
Reality_CheckŠ
"jerry warner" <"warne(ns)"@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:482D14F8...@mchsi.com...
> murder by proxy.
Wrong.
richard
<the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A federal grand jury indicted a Missouri woman
>Thursday for her alleged role in perpetrating a hoax on the online social
>network MySpace against a 13-year-old neighbor who committed suicide.
>
Ok let's clarify this a bit more. From what I have read online is, the
indictment has not yet been granted. It is only a request by two
unnamed federal agents from Los Angeles.
The suicide, and crime took place in 2006.
The state of Missouri did not see there was enough evidence to charge
anyone with anything.
So now there is sufficient evidence on the federal level?
Can someone please inform us under exactly which law the indictment
will be granted? If it is granted, I for one am gonna bitch like holy
hell.
Reality_CheckŠ
"Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
news:x-464C2C.01...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <hmns24tlnck5p8ik9...@4ax.com>,
> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:16:48 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
>> <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>>
>> >LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A federal grand jury indicted a Missouri
>> >woman
>> >Thursday for her alleged role in perpetrating a hoax on the online
>> >social
>> >network MySpace against a 13-year-old neighbor who committed suicide.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Ok let's clarify this a bit more. From what I have read online is, the
>> indictment has not yet been granted. It is only a request by two
>> unnamed federal agents from Los Angeles.
>
> very first sentence of the story you replied to stated.
>
> For further proof, a copy of the indictment is here:
>
> http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/15/my.space.drew.indictment.pd
> f
>
> (This copy does not have the grand jury foreperson's signature, likely
> to protect their anonymity.)
>
>
>> The suicide, and crime took place in 2006.
>> The state of Missouri did not see there was enough evidence to charge
>> anyone with anything.
>> So now there is sufficient evidence on the federal level?
>
> investigated the case but determined that no Missouri law applied to
> these facts. The feds investigated the case, and they determined that
> there were several federal laws that this woman violated.
>
>> Can someone please inform us under exactly which law the indictment
>> will be granted? If it is granted, I for one am gonna bitch like holy
>> hell.
>
> issue.
ROTFLMAO !!
"Plus, receiving stolen money (or property of any kind) is only a
crime if the recipient knows it is stolen"
-- Lyin' Larry, the legal imbecile
"What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is? There is no such thing."
-- Larry the legal stooge
" [The Jury] might have unanimously found that he probably committed the
crime, or likely committed them, or possibly committed them - *or* that he
was in
fact innocent."
-- Larry the idiot
"The jury was hung. Whether it was hung 11 for the top count and 1
for a lesser count or 1 for the top count and 11 to acquit is of no legal
relevance in terms of bail."
-- Larry the legal imbecile
" Actually, prisons are one of the few public places where
you can still smoke."
-- Larry the moron
"There are over 1300 ADAs in New York City alone, and
I personally know at least a half-dozen named Larry or Lawrence."
-- Larry the eponymous fool
" I don't know a single attorney, public or private,
who knows his/her attorney registration number."
-- Larry Glasser
Larry the Imbecile also claims that
0.625 grams is "far more than a gram"
and that a handcuffed man will "fall faster"
when pushed off a cliff.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> mine, can you?
This from the moron Larry who's enfatuated with battling Richard for
the Usenet Title of the World's Most Ignorant Legal Imbecile.
" Actually, prisons are one of the few public places where
you can still smoke."
-- Larry the moron
"Plus, receiving stolen money (or property of any kind) is only a
crime if the recipient knows it is stolen"
-- Lyin' Larry, the legal imbecile
"What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is? There is no such thing."
-- Larry the legal stooge
" [The Jury] might have unanimously found that he probably committed the
crime, or likely committed them, or possibly committed them - or that he
was in fact innocent."
-- Larry the idiot
"The jury was hung. Whether it was hung 11 for the top count and 1
for a lesser count or 1 for the top count and 11 to acquit is of no legal
relevance in terms of bail."
-- Larry the legal imbecile
Reality_CheckŠ
Your confession is noted.
Reality_CheckŠ
"Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote
> means, do so. But the fact that you have to note it demonstrates its
> not at all what you claim it to be.
You just can't stop lying, can you Larry ?
MB
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
> The indictment says MySpace members agree to abide by terms of service that
> include, among other things, not promoting information they know to be false
> or
> misleading;
So how many of us are guilty for using false names, since we are
promoting information that is false or misleading. Do you really have a
MD or phd prof. jonez? Is Jonez your real last name?
The name I am using is not real, no way would I use a real name of
email. Imagine all the spam!! Totally ridiculous case. Everyone who
violates a TOS (who reads these anyways?? NO ONE!) that states you cant
mislead will be guilty of using a false name, IE tiny dancer, me, bo
raxo, etc etc etc.
If she was charged with child abuse I would be happy, instead of this
horrid precedent!!
MB
> Can someone please inform us under exactly which law the indictment
> will be granted? If it is granted, I for one am gonna bitch like holy
> hell.
myspace, which is located in California, has terms of service (tos, you
know which you dont read and just click ok) which says you cant use
false or misleading information, ie a false name or age. BTW, the
victim violated the TOS by being too young, and would be guilty of what
Drew is charged with.
The charges have NOTHING to do with Drew being mean, or bullying, or
child abuse, just using a false name which all of us do
MB
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
> Yes, because different laws are involved. Missouri authorities
> investigated the case but determined that no Missouri law applied to
> these facts. The feds investigated the case, and they determined that
> there were several federal laws that this woman violated.
>
> > Can someone please inform us under exactly which law the indictment
> > will be granted? If it is granted, I for one am gonna bitch like holy
> > hell.
>
> You always bitch, Richard. And you're always on the wrong side of the
> issue.
She is being charged with violating the TOS, which no one reads,
specifically not using her real name. IS Larry your real first and last
name? What about your email address, is it correct? Have you read the
terms of service for supernews? You are probably in violation and can
be charged with a 5 year sentence!! Almost all of us can, for that
matter!!
Cynic
wrote:
Contravening a provider's TOS is not a criminal act, and cannot result
in either jail nor a criminal record. At the very worst, the provider
could sue you - but would have to show that they suffered monetary
loss as a result of you breaking their TOS.
--
Cynic
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
05/19/2008
at 06:44 PM, MB <ret...@whittehouse.govv> said:
>The name I am using is not real, no way would I use a real name of
>email. Imagine all the spam!! Totally ridiculous case. Everyone who
>violates a TOS (who reads these anyways?? NO ONE!) that states you cant
>mislead will be guilty of using a false name,
ROTF,LMAO! If you can't be bothered to read your provider's AUP/TOS, then
you should take the responsibility for the consequences. And even if *YOU*
don't know how to add a few words to your sig[1], plenty of others do.
>If she was charged with child abuse I would be happy, instead of this
>horrid precedent!!
A conviction would not be a horrible precedent, although I certainly
wouldn't mind seeing a conviction on multiple charges.
[1] If you had one, which you don't.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet
<http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive
E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact
me. Do not reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
_ Prof. Jonez _
> In <retard-29046E....@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, on
> 05/19/2008
> at 06:44 PM, MB <ret...@whittehouse.govv> said:
>
>> The name I am using is not real, no way would I use a real name of
>> email. Imagine all the spam!! Totally ridiculous case. Everyone
>> who violates a TOS (who reads these anyways?? NO ONE!) that states
>> you cant mislead will be guilty of using a false name,
>
> ROTF,LMAO! If you can't be bothered to read your provider's AUP/TOS,
What makes you think an AU Policy should have criminal penalties?
> then you should take the responsibility for the consequences. And
> even if *YOU* don't know how to add a few words to your sig[1],
> plenty of others do.
So you support the Criminal prosecution of ISP's that violate their
own AUP/TOS, eh?
>
>> If she was charged with child abuse I would be happy, instead of this
>> horrid precedent!!
>
> A conviction would not be a horrible precedent, although I certainly
> wouldn't mind seeing a conviction on multiple charges.
So you support the criminal prosecutions and any convictions against
the U$ Telecoms who violated their Terms of Service by disclosing
millions of private party records to the Criminal Bu$h Administration, eh?
NOTE: By replying to this posting you agree to be bound by the
following Use Policy / Contract --
1) You, the respondant, must only type with your right hand.
2) You, the respondant, must ram a dildo up your ass with
your left hand whilst typing.
3) Failure to abide by this contract shall be deemed a Felony
4) If you don't agree to the above, then don't reply.
Now take Dick Cheney's advice and go fuck yourself, jackass.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> In article
> <retard-303967....@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, MB
> <ret...@whittehouse.govv> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <x-1E38A2.22...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Larry
>> <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Have you even read the TOS of you newsserver and isp?
>>>
>>> I have never accessed information in excess of the authorization
>>> granted to me by my ISP. Have you?
>>
>> How would you know unless you have completely read the terms of
>> service to find out what actions are permissible? Plus I did not
>> see in the indictment any reference to them trying to get personal
>> information about the victim.
>>
>> Plus this hinges on one knowing what the TOS is, and EVERYONE just
>> clicks a box acknowledging the TOS. The TOS should not be valid if
>> you can just click a box to acknowledge knowledge.
>
> How is this different from saying that a written contract shouldn't be
> valid if you can just go to the last page and sign it without reading
> it?
>
> We can't force others to read or understand things. What we can do is
> require objective, concrete actions that are manifestations of that
> understanding. If someone willfully claims to have read or understand
> something that they didn't read or don't understand, there's nothing
> the law can (or should, IMHO) do to protect them.
>
> What does that mean? When you sign up for MySpace or an account
> virtually anywhere, you have to click a box that usually says
> something like "clicking here notes your acceptance of the TOS."
> Some sites habev an extra layer of assurance by not letting you check
> the box until you click the link to the TOS or scroll to the bottom
> of the TOS or the like, but they can't force you to read it.
>
> If you check the box without reading the TOS, you're setting yourself
> up for problems, since you don't even know what you're agreeing with.
> Why should the law protect you in this situation?
By replying to my posting, you, Lyin' Larry, contractually agree
to the following terms and conditions:
1) You will eat one pound of human excrement while
typing your response
2) You will do the above with a Chiquita bannana shoved
up your ass.
Failure to abide by these terms and conditions under the
penalty of criminal felony prosecution.
If you don't accept the above terms and conditions, then
do not post a reply. Your reply shall be deemed an acceptance
without modification or condition.
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <69ggbhF...@mid.individual.net>,
>conditions.
Can you prove it?
>See if you can get the feds to prosecute me, fool. Or if you have a
>cognizant case for breach of contract.
Reality_CheckŠ
Cynic
>I'm writing this response without abiding by either of your terms and
>conditions.
>
>See if you can get the feds to prosecute me, fool. Or if you have a
>cognizant case for breach of contract.
You have just proved the point that the PP was making. Breaking the
terms of a AUP or TOS *cannot* result in any criminal proceedings
(unless the action is also against the law of the land), and is
unlikely to result in civil action either. The worst that is normally
possible is that you are denied the service you paid for.
--
Cynic
Deadrat
news:390834pkag0qahoqj...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 14:07:24 -0400, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm writing this response without abiding by either of your terms and
>>conditions.
>>
>>See if you can get the feds to prosecute me, fool. Or if you have a
>>cognizant case for breach of contract.
>
> You have just proved the point that the PP was making.
Hardly. There's no contract here, for one. It takes two, and cyber
contracts require an explicit acceptance.
> Breaking the
> terms of a AUP or TOS *cannot* result in any criminal proceedings
> (unless the action is also against the law of the land), and is
> unlikely to result in civil action either.
And yet, Drew finds that her alleged breaking of the MySpace TOS not only
could result in criminal proceedings, but it *did* result in criminal
proceedings.
> The worst that is normally
> possible is that you are denied the service you paid for.
Ah, but normally teenagers don't kill themselves over someone else's use of
computer resources.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 18:31:28 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>> Breaking the
>>> terms of a AUP or TOS *cannot* result in any criminal proceedings
>>> (unless the action is also against the law of the land), and is
>>> unlikely to result in civil action either.
>
>> And yet, Drew finds that her alleged breaking of the MySpace TOS not
>> only could result in criminal proceedings, but it *did* result in
>> criminal proceedings.
>
> the land, not MySpace TOS. Terms of Service agreements very often
> prohibit specific acts that are illegal in the country that some (but
> perhaps not all) of its customers reside.
>
> No individual or company has the power to change the law of a country,
> either to criminalise something that is not criminal, or to permit
> something that is criminal.
Tell that to Blackwater and Halliburton ...
_ Prof. Jonez _
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote in news:69okfnF32ma7gU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote in news:69ojfnF34jg8rU1
>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>> artie lange <Ar...@lange.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:TPSdnZahX5PrQKvV...@supernews.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Larry wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's actually part of the culture in the North Side of Chicago,
>>>>>>> where Wrigley field is literally built among city blocks, and
>>>>>>> is a very small stadium. Nearby mid-rise apartment buildings
>>>>>>> actually have seats installed on their rooftops, and residents
>>>>>>> have to reserve the seats if they want to have parties or
>>>>>>> invite friends up there during game times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are entire web sites about these buildings online. See,
>>>>>>> for example, <http://www.wrigleyrooftops.com/> and
>>>>>>> <http://www.thecubdom.com/features/wrigleyrooftop_overview.html>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's quite the cottage industry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah but, I think a percentage of those ticket sales though goto
>>>>>> the Chicago Cubs, there was a big deal about this a few years
>>>>>> ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, several years ago most of the rooftoppers settled a
>>>>> copyright infringement (!) lawsuit that the Tribune Company
>>>>> brought against them, and they agreed to pay the Cubs a
>>>>> percentage of rooftop receipts.
>>>>
>>>> Oooops! Looks like wanna-be legal-eagle Amy got it WRONG yet again
>>>> !
>>>
>>> She claimed it wasn't illegal to watch as a rooftopper.
>>
>> Funny, she's continuously conflated various civil torts with crimes,
>> and vice versa.
>
> <amy>
> so if you _do_ happen to live within viewing
> distance of an unroofed stadium, watching the game from your home is
> not breaking the law.
> </amy>
>
> That's pretty much been her position. I re-read her posts and didn't
> see any conflation of torts and crimes.
Amy: "The stadium doesn't charge for high-rise viewing, because it can't. It
has
no jurisdiction over what you do on your own property."
Amy: "To commit theft in that way (free viewing of a live movie
or a live baseball game), you have to have physically violated someone's
domain."
Amy: "That's exactly like the argument people use when they're infringing on a
copyrighted work. And it's incorrect. The entity being deprived of income
is the stadium. You got to see the game, but you didn't pay the stadium for
it."
Amy: "You're in your own home, the game is "arriving" there without your having
to
do anything, you have the right to view it. To be stealing, you have to
violate the stadium's domain. I think it's either "willfully violate" or
"aggressively violate," plus a few other things like "through deception" etc."
Amy: "Ha, that's great! And my guess is that no one's ever been dragged to
court
for this, right?"
Artie: "Can not speak if anyone ever went to court, I do know the Tribune
company was serving lawsuits to building owners for copyright
infringement, but the outcome of those I am unaware of."
MuertusRatus: "Civil court. AG's talking about being dragged to court on a
criminal
charge, like theft of service."
Deadrat
This seems to be a true statement unrelated to torts or crimes. Some,
but not all, of the Wrigleyville rooftoppers settled out of court with
the Tribune Company and they do pay a percentage of what they collect.
> Amy: "To commit theft in that way (free viewing of a live movie
> or a live baseball game), you have to have physically violated
> someone's domain."
This seems to be a true statement related to a crime.
> Amy: "That's exactly like the argument people use when they're
> infringing on a copyrighted work. And it's incorrect. The entity
> being deprived of income is the stadium. You got to see the game, but
> you didn't pay the stadium for it."
This seems to be a true statement. Copyright infringement can be both a
civil or criminal matter.
> Amy: "You're in your own home, the game is "arriving" there without
> your having to
> do anything, you have the right to view it. To be stealing, you have
> to violate the stadium's domain. I think it's either "willfully
> violate" or "aggressively violate," plus a few other things like
> "through deception" etc."
This seems to be a ture statement related to a crime.
> Amy: "Ha, that's great! And my guess is that no one's ever been
> dragged to court for this, right?"
This seems to be a true statement about criminal court.
> Artie: "Can not speak if anyone ever went to court, I do know the
> Tribune
> company was serving lawsuits to building owners for copyright
> infringement, but the outcome of those I am unaware of."
This is Artie, not Amy.
> MuertusRatus: "Civil court. AG's talking about being dragged to court
> on a criminal charge, like theft of service."
That's what I think she's talking about. I'm not sure her analysis holds
up when the topic is broadcast, but it's pretty much spot on for the
visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote in
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote in
>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote in
Get back to us when you have verifiable facts and case law.
>
>> Amy: "To commit theft in that way (free viewing of a live movie
>> or a live baseball game), you have to have physically violated
>> someone's domain."
>
> This seems to be a
Get back to us when you have verifiable facts and case law.
>
>> Amy: "That's exactly like the argument people use when they're
>> infringing on a copyrighted work. And it's incorrect. The entity
>> being deprived of income is the stadium. You got to see the game,
>> but you didn't pay the stadium for it."
>
> This seems to be a
Get back to us when you have verifiable facts and case law.
>
>> Amy: "You're in your own home, the game is "arriving" there without
>> your having to
>> do anything, you have the right to view it. To be stealing, you have
>> to violate the stadium's domain. I think it's either "willfully
>> violate" or "aggressively violate," plus a few other things like
>> "through deception" etc."
>
> This seems to be a
Get back to us when you have verifiable facts and case law.
>> Amy: "Ha, that's great! And my guess is that no one's ever been
>> dragged to court for this, right?"
>
> This seems to be a
Get back to us when you have verifiable facts and case law.
>
>> Artie: "Can not speak if anyone ever went to court, I do know the
>> Tribune
>> company was serving lawsuits to building owners for copyright
>> infringement, but the outcome of those I am unaware of."
>
> This is Artie, not Amy.
>
>> MuertusRatus: "Civil court. AG's talking about being dragged to
>> court on a criminal charge, like theft of service."
>
> That's what I think she's talking about.
Irrelevant. Get back to us when you have verifiable facts and case law.
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
This isn't about case law. There is none for the Wrigleyville
rooftoppers. It's about your characterization of the OP's post. She may
be wrong in her musings, but she's not confusing torts and crimes.
Reality_CheckŠ
> facts and case law, ok?
" [The Jury] might have unanimously found that he probably committed the
crime,
or likely committed them, or possibly committed them - *or* that he was in
fact
innocent."
-- Larry the legal imbecile Glasser
"The jury was hung. Whether it was hung 11 for the top count and 1
for a lesser count or 1 for the top count and 11 to acquit is of no legal
relevance in terms of bail."
-- Larry the legal imbecile
" Actually, prisons are one of the few public places where you can still
smoke."
-- Larry the idiot
"What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is? There is no such thing."
-- Larry the legal stooge
" I don't know a single attorney, public or private, who knows
his/her attorney registration number."
-- Larry doing his Alberto Gonzales impersonation
"Actually, as an Assistant District Attorney, I know precisely who should be
in prison"
-- Larry the delusional jackass
Kent Wills: "I'm just the guy who can travel without restriction to
several Latin American countries."
UM: "Why not all the Latin American countries then, eh Kent?"
Larry the idiot Glasser: "Federal law, dumbass. No citizen can go to some
of the
nations from the US."
And lets not forget Lyin' Larry's claim that 0.625 grams is "far more than a
gram".