Yeah - heard it on Nationalized Public Radio yesterday, so the details
weren't too clear, but it sounded like the judge felt that Baker hadn't
violated any of the specific offenses defined by the laws (i.e. that he
hadn't really made a threat against the woman whose name Baker used),
and that his free speech was being violated. How much does this
reflect on Exon? If the House and Clinton also pass his bill,
the law would now be strong enough to prosecute the next Jake Baker,
but the free speech issues are also much more serious.
Anybody know which level court it was?
Laura and Bill Stewart Netcruiser Account (probably Bill posting)
Bill's other address is bill.s...@pleasantonca.attgis.com
which is far more reliable than posting replies since I'm pretty busy.
> A federal judge dismissed the case against Jake Baker today
> citing lack of a credible threat.
right on, right on. :)
> This is the guy that wan't even granted *bail* because of the
> venom of his accusers, who apparently are regrouping behind
> the CDA.
hmm... by his accusers, do you mean the govvies? they
work for Clinton, who at least in theory is
opposed to CDA ...
And, unfortunately, the word "exonerated" is too strong ..
Baker was not acquitted, his charges were merely
dismissed, which means he can be re-charged.
I don't think this is quite right, at least from what I understand in the
The judge dismissed the charges and said no crime had been committed.
In other words, there had been no offense. I think that prevents further
prosecution, at least under those charges.
John K. Taber jkt...@netcom.com