I think so, Brain … the early bird gets the worm, and you can get one by drinking the whole bottle of tequila.
Here’s how The Dread Pirate Kimberlin begins his description of the “RICO Enterprise” in his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. lawsuit.Note that TDPK alleges that the all of the 20+ defendants were a part of the “RICO Enterprise” from November, 2011. If true (stop laughing), that would mean that I was recruited into the enterprise at a time when my monthly traffic was less than 40% of my current average daily hit rate.
I wonder what the masterminds of the outfit saw in my blogging back then?
Ignorance never settles a question.
In order to establish that a law has been violated, one must show that all of the elements of the crime have been committed. What are the elements of the Maryland crime of misuse of electronic communication or interactive computer service?
One of the acts prohibited by Maryland Criminal Law § 3-805 is (1) the use of any means of data transmission (2) via a computer or other electronic means (3) to send that data to a person (4) who receives that data (5) for the purpose of engaging in course of conduct (6) that alarms or seriously annoys another (7) with the intention to harass, alarm, or annoy the other person (8) after being told to stop and (9) without a legal purpose.
1. Does Twitter transmit data? Yes.
2. Does the transmission go via a computer or other electronic means? Yes.
3. Is the data sent to a particular person? If @useraccount is used, Yes.
4. Does the user receive the data? Yes. It arrives in his Interactions and/or Mentions pages.
5. Does a course of conduct exist? If no more than an isolated tweet is involved, probably no. If a sustained flow of tweets is involved, yes.
6. Does the data contain anything alarming or seriously annoying? If it’s petty name calling, probably no. If it’s threats to file criminal charges, probably yes.
7. Does the course of conduct demonstrate an intention to harass, alarm, or annoy? If it contains threats to file criminal charges, probably yes.
8. Was the data sent after being told to stop? A warning from the bench by a District Court judge is notice to stop. A peace order is notice to stop.
9. Was the data sent without a legal purpose? Communication or harassment in violation of a peace order is illegal.
The examination of the elements of this crime with respect to the behavior of certain persons using Twitter is left to the Gentle Reader as an exercise.
Speaking of “The Elements” …
I think so, Brain … have you noticed that every new project requires a tool we don’t have?
Yep. That’s it. And it’s the same logic that makes my AT&T ring my iPhone if you dial my number. It’s the same logic that makes the U. S. Postal Service deliver mail to my mailbox if you put my address on the envelope. It’s the same logic that makes the Internet route email to my account if you use my email address. It’s the same logic that makes …
I’ve been going through The Dread Pirate Kimberlin’s Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO suit trying to figure out what case might actually be there. In order for a civil RICO complaint to stand up in court, the plaintiff has to properly allege two separate predicate criminal acts by the RICO enterprise. Here’s one of TDPK’s attempts at do so—Ooooooh! Obstruction of Justice! That’s sounds evil.
18 USC § 1503 deals with trying to interfere with or intimidate a federal juror, officer of a federal court, or a federal judge. TDPK fails to explain which defendant did that to any juror, officer of the court, or judge.
18 USC § 1510 deals with bribery. TDPK fails to accuse any defendant of bribing anyone.
18 USC § 1511 deals with facilitating an illegal gambling business. You can bet that he doesn’t mention gambling, legal or illegal, in his complaint.