|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 316 responses total. |
dpc
|
|
response 225 of 316:
| 
Jul 15 14:08 UTC 1999 |
Oop! That should be July 22 and *23* obviously.
I've heard nothing further from Steinberg. Has anyone else?
I'm a bit concerned that with only a week to go until the hearing
we don't know if they want to call anyone from Grex as a witness.
|
mary
|
|
response 226 of 316:
|
Jul 15 18:10 UTC 1999 |
I haven't heard more.
|
aruba
|
|
response 227 of 316:
|
Jul 15 18:50 UTC 1999 |
Neither have I.
|
jep
|
|
response 228 of 316:
|
Jul 15 20:47 UTC 1999 |
re #223: That link crashes Netscape Communicator for me.
It doesn't appear the ACLU wants to call anyone from Grex, or from
Arbornet, either. I assume they've gotten what they wanted from both
organizations: names to legitimize their lawsuit. We have nothing
further of value to offer, and so now they're done with us. No one here
should be surprised.
|
mary
|
|
response 229 of 316:
|
Jul 15 23:39 UTC 1999 |
Take a deep breath, Jep.
Now take another. ;-)
|
jep
|
|
response 230 of 316:
|
Jul 16 01:33 UTC 1999 |
<Guess she must not agree with my viewpoint of the ACLU.>
|
janc
|
|
response 231 of 316:
|
Jul 16 03:13 UTC 1999 |
I've heard more. I'll be a witness for Grex on Thursday morning.
|
robh
|
|
response 232 of 316:
|
Jul 16 04:35 UTC 1999 |
You'll be going door to door with little pamphlets, telling people
how accepting Grex into your heart has changed your life?
|
aruba
|
|
response 233 of 316:
|
Jul 16 16:10 UTC 1999 |
Re #228: John, you make it sound so dirty. ;)
Re #231: Great! Could I ride in with you and sit in the courtroom and watch?
|
dpc
|
|
response 234 of 316:
|
Jul 16 18:09 UTC 1999 |
Congrats, janc! Remember - before you answer a question, think about
the question. Then *just* answer the question and *stop*.
|
janc
|
|
response 235 of 316:
|
Jul 17 13:16 UTC 1999 |
Re 233: Sure. I'm assuming it is open to the public. I'm not sure how
much of the hearing I'll be hanging around for. I'll be talking to the
lawyers more Monday, I think. I'll probably be the second person
testifying, after their internet expert.
|
scg
|
|
response 236 of 316:
|
Jul 17 21:24 UTC 1999 |
I'm somewhat interested in going as well, although I should drive separately
if I do that since I wouldn't be coming back to Ann Arbor right away
afterward.
|
other
|
|
response 237 of 316:
|
Jul 19 00:16 UTC 1999 |
will you be allowed to record your testimony so that you can provide
interested parties with a transcript or copy?
|
keesan
|
|
response 238 of 316:
|
Jul 19 00:54 UTC 1999 |
I would like to congratulate jdeigert on making his very first response in
the bbs, after a year of having it read aloud to him. g ?
He is considering changing his login to vi for village idiot. The response
was an accident, he says. He was just experimenting.
|
davel
|
|
response 239 of 316:
|
Jul 19 13:03 UTC 1999 |
Heh. In this environment "vi" means something entirely different, Sindi.
|
keesan
|
|
response 240 of 316:
|
Jul 19 13:53 UTC 1999 |
I know that. At one point Jim wanted to be DRDOS (doctor dos). What exactly
is vi an acronym for? Visual something or other?
|
dpc
|
|
response 241 of 316:
|
Jul 19 14:17 UTC 1999 |
A court reporter will be recording all of the testimony. Anyone who
wants a transcript of a particular part of it can order it from
the court reporter. Typically it costs about $2 per page.
|
richard
|
|
response 242 of 316:
|
Jul 19 23:21 UTC 1999 |
Janc, be prepared for a brutal cross-examination where the state
attorneys try to force you to admit to the possibilities of minors
reading pornographic material on grex. They will do everything in their
power to make you say what they want you to say-- even ifyou make
your point, they will strongly attempt in all likelihood to get you
to concede to their points as well.
|
other
|
|
response 243 of 316:
|
Jul 20 04:13 UTC 1999 |
Screw 'em blue, Jan!
|
janc
|
|
response 244 of 316:
|
Jul 20 05:40 UTC 1999 |
Actually richard, they will probably try roughly the opposite - to prove
that Grex has no standing and that systems like ours are not going to be
harmed in any significant way by this legislation.
I'll be meeting with (some of) the attornies in Detroit on Wednesday
afternoon.
|
janc
|
|
response 245 of 316:
|
Jul 21 21:46 UTC 1999 |
This is from Michael Stienberg:
As you know, there will be an evidentiary hearing or mini-trial in the
Internet Censorship case on Thursday and Friday. The hearing is set to
start at 8:30 Thursday morning. After opening statements, our expert,
Lorrie Cranor from AT&T labs in NJ will testify, followed by Jan Wolter
from Cyberspace. It appears as if the State will not be putting on any
witnesses and therefore I suspect that it will be over by lunch or early
afternoon. First thing Friday morning Michael Neff from Web Del Sol
will testify. Then there should be closing arguments about the
constitutionality of the law. My guess is that there is a 50% chance
that the judge will rule from the bench. If he doesn't, he will issue
an opinion next week.
We encourage members of Cyberspace and Arbornet to come to the hearing
or any part of the hearing (and to sit on our side). The U.S.
Courthouse for the Eastern District of Michigan is in Detroit at 231 W.
Lafayette Blvd. (at the intersection with Washington Blvd.). Directions
from AA: M-14 to I-96 to I-94 East to Rte. 10 South (a/k/a the Lodge
Freeway). Take the Larned Street Exit (it is a Left Exit) from Rte.
10. Take first left after going through a short tunnel onto Washington
Blvd. Go two or three blocks to Lafayette and park in one of the lots
near the courthouse. The hearing is in Judge Tarnow's Courtroom on the
first floor of the courthouse. It should be very interesting. You can
enter and exit the courtroom as you please.
Thanks for spreading the word. Hope to see you there.
|
janc
|
|
response 246 of 316:
|
Jul 22 18:33 UTC 1999 |
The hearing today seems to have gone well. The judge will make a ruling
before August 1.
Mark took extensive notes during the hearing, and will probably post
more information.
I was very happy with Judge Tarnow - he seemed very clearly to
understand the issues. It sounded like he was likely to be quite
favorable.
Andy Nicholhof was the ACLU lawyer who presented the case. He had
originally planned to call three witnesses - an AT&T researcher who was
an Internet expert, myself representing Grex, and someone representing
Web Del Sol. The third witness was to come in tommorrow. But the Judge
wanted to get things over quickly, so the last witness was cancelled and
the whole hearing was done this morning.
I think the testimony went well. The attorney representing the State
Attorney General's office did not cross-examine any witnesses, did not
present any witnesses, and only did a short summing up (their case being
mainly stated in a 35-page brief they submitted a few days ago). It
seemed more like a stubborn and dutiful defense than a vigorous one.
|
janc
|
|
response 247 of 316:
|
Jul 22 18:38 UTC 1999 |
I was also pleased that we had a good number of Grexer's at the hearing.
Besides myself, we had aruba, steve, scg and remmers sitting on our side
of the room. The judge even commented that the people sitting on the
plaintiff's side seemed to vastly outnumber the people sitting on the
defendent's side. I think kind of turn-out on a weekday afternoon tends
to support our claim that we are very concerned about this act.
|
dpc
|
|
response 248 of 316:
|
Jul 22 19:56 UTC 1999 |
Nice--very nice, indeed! Sounds like the AG's people really fell
on their swords. Imagine not cross-examining the witnesses...
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 249 of 316:
|
Jul 22 20:01 UTC 1999 |
Did you expect any less from Jennifer Granholm?
|