PLEASE STOP POSTING RAISTHEFIST WARRANT. YOU ARE PUTTING 2 WOMEN IN DANGER

1) Sherman is in federal jail;
2) He's being charged w/ multiple felony counts;
3) He's being extradited back to LA;
4) He has a good criminal attorney;
5) LA ACLU is signing on to help w/ legal support once he is here;
6) A fund is going to be set up to help his family w/ mounting bills;
7)The attorney and his family have asked for people to stop spreading rumors, they are hurting him and his case, and also to please not talk to the media about this.

Cyberlaw commentary regarding bomb-making instructions and free speech (pre "Patriot"-Act). Excerpted from: http://yukidoke.org/~mako/cyberlaw/.

If I publish bomb-making instructions online and a high school is blown up using a bomb fashioned according to my directions, should I be held liable? What if I posted "ads" about my site in Marilyn Manson discussion areas or other places where depressed or tormented teens were likely to hang out online? What if I described the bombs on my site as "Revenge Makers" or suggested places within schools where they might do the most damage?


Answer:
http://yukidoke.org/~mako/cyberlaw/bombs.html

Meg Smith

Cyberlaw

29 March 2000

The act of publishing bomb instructions alone is a form of expression that is protected as free and has traditionally be treated as such. However, in the Wired article on daterape.org, the author makes reference to the fact that the content, "would have been traditionally protected speech...but a 1999 Ninth Circuit case involving anti-abortion Web sites expanded a legal concept known as the `true threats' doctrine."

I believe that the expanded "true threats" doctrine, while dangerous in its potential ramifications, would certainly apply to this situation and while, I believe the doctrine might be dangerously broad, I believe it would serve its very valid purpose in this case. I believe that if the bomb material were published on the Internet in a way that took steps to create a website that disseminated this information without promoting its use in violent manner, it would not serve as a "true threat." However, this decision is ultimately up to a court.

I believe that it is in deciding a website's nature as a threat that the second parts of your question become pertinent. If your website were a news article detailing the structure of a bomb used in a terrorist activity, I doubt many people (or more importantly, many courts) would hold you or your newspaper responsible for uses of the information by any of your readers. In the newspaper, you did not suggest a use or violent use of the bomb and, by demonstrating the negative repercussions of such an action throughout the rest of the article, even spoke against its use. Similarly, if the bomb is detailed on a website for science projects, fireworks, industrial solutions, mining, avalanche management, stump-removal or landscaping, I do not believe that the bomb acts as a "true threat." Most of the people that come across the plans for the bomb on landscaping page will be at the page because they want to landscape or remove a stump. In this way, I do not believe that it serves as a true threat. If a angst-ridden teen finds the landscaping page, they are responsible for the misuse of the information.

However, if you post to angst-ridden teenager Usenet groups and market your bomb plans as tools for violence and destruction, you should be held responsible for the repercussions of your actions. You are no longer a simply the creator of information that is used violently, but an instigator and member of the violent process. In these ways, your bomb plans, which by themselves and in other forms may be permissible, now represent a "true threat" and are treated differently under the law. You role has left the realm of information distributed and you have begun to take a role in the illegal use of the bomb. You are liable because you disseminated information but because you encouraged violent and illegal misuse of the information.

This application of "true threat" attempts to protect people without harming their rights to free speech. You can not get in trouble for what you say, but for the role you take in a violent process and the reprecussions of the process in which you played a role. However, while applications of "true threat" can often prove valid, the doctrine is extremely dangerous in its applications because it is open to complete interpretation of a court and needs to reacted to by the public accordingly.

If the "true threat" test is going to be applied, how do you determine the threat?

The information in the Reclaim Guide appears to be collected from various books, emails, and other websites. There's little to distinguish rtf from other websites that host this type of information. What makes the RG different?

Also, there's the issue of context. How many people would have taken seriously anything on RTF? Comments immediately following the raid by observers indicated that many people didn't think the site was anything more than a website run by a kid. In other words, they granted it no authority.

from chantel, an LA activist who is in contact with Sherman's family:

1) His court date has been moved to Thursday morning.

2) LA ACLU cannot take a criminal case but will support a civil case; ACLU does not do criminal cases. But the family is talking to some very big named criminal attorneys who most likely will be taking on the case if and when it gets to CA.

3) Family needs help w/ $$ and would like to know who would like to help across the nation or international level in fundraising. please make a post and give us your contact info (email, etc).

4) Sherman might actually not be sent back to LA, all depends on how court goes in NYC, but since they are federal charges, they can technically have him go to trial anywhere. The charges were filed in Southern CA Central Court, but that does not mean he has to come back here.

5) He is doing well, just not sleeping at all, and his lawyer will see him tomorrow and get a statement from him.

From: Freeusall4evr890 [at] aol.com
To: bodhiman [at] hotmail.com
Subject: Here's all that I said to them
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:53:19 EST

CrAzYaSsRoCkChK: Hey
CrAzYaSsRoCkChK: Please let this be Sherman and if not please tell me he's ok
CrAzYaSsRoCkChK: I'm worried about his safety and I don't want him to be hurt at all
CrAzYaSsRoCkChK: Ok fine no one talk to me, even though Sherman was planning on trying to get me away from home where I have to put up with a step-dad who's beaten my mom before
CrAzYaSsRoCkChK: He's not all bad
CrAzYaSsRoCkChK: Please fucking talk to me
CrAzYaSsRoCkChK: you talked to capitaliscrime
CrAzYaSsRoCkChK: before
CrAzYaSsRoCkChK: Did I scare you when I said "hey sexy" yesterday on my other s/n?
CrAzYaSsRoCkChK: You're mean
CrAzYaSsRoCkChK: I can tell you're not Sherman because you're not talking to me so you're blowing you're cover
CrAzYaSsRoCkChK: Plus I'm talking to capitaliscrime right now
CrAzYaSsRoCkChK: since he's one of my friends also
CrAzYaSsRoCkChK: You know people don't think that it's right that you're taking over people's IM's
CrAzYaSsRoCkChK: You're taking away are freedom and soon enough people will get fed up with it
CrAzYaSsRoCkChK: People are finding out and you're secrets aren't so secret anymore
CrAzYaSsRoCkChK: You outta watch you're back because you will get caught and the truth will come out
ucaun signed off at 7:08:08 PM.
ucaun signed on at 7:32:52 PM.
CrAzYaSsRoCkChK: so are you still not talking to me?
ucaun signed off at 7:33:13 PM.

From: revolution [at] 2cp.com
To: militantpoetratm [at] evilempire.zzn.com, chantel g <cherrysweet [at] hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 17:31:26 -0800
Subject: FUCK FUCK .. PLEASE READ NOW
CC: slmonjester [at] aol.com, sageoffanon [at] aol.com, ecoterrorist2500 [at] yahoo.com

[snip]

if i didn't tell you before, earlier they started to intercept my internet packets (i have a static IP, and i'm on DSL) .. also , they just recently, they were tapping into my AIM acct, which bumped me offline and didn't allow me to use it. Therefor I started using my other screen name "Crash1478" ... When my AIM screeen name came back online, "raisethefist" ... I started IMing it ...

here is the convo:

crash1478: who are you
crash1478: you have 3 seconds
crash1478: answer
Raisethefist signed off at 5:09:20 PM.
Raisethefist signed on at 5:10:19 PM.
crash1478: who are you
crash1478: you have 2 seconds
crash1478: what's wrong
crash1478: scared?
crash1478: i know who you are
Raisethefist: your ass is going to jail
crash1478: well well
crash1478: threats
crash1478: bring it on
crash1478: are you that much of a wuss
crash1478: have to tap into my accounts and threaten me
Raisethefist: This is a matter of national security, pal. We're tapping ALL accounts.
crash1478: haha
crash1478: i've seen you motherfuckers around here already
crash1478: i know who you are
crash1478: why don't you try to profile me again tonight
crash1478: i'll take your pics and put them all over the internet for all my comrades to see :-)
Raisethefist: We're watching you, and packeting you. Warrants are wonderful.
crash1478: I know
crash1478: found that out
Raisethefist: Whats with the A.I.F. sir.
Raisethefist: Try not to leave D.N.A. around next time.
crash1478: "??
Raisethefist: Don't act like you don't know us. We must disable this account immediately.
Raisethefist signed off at 5:16:16 PM.

[snip]

13. At the time of the search, AUSTIN stated that he owned all the items inside his bedroom at his residence. During the search of AUSTIN's bedroom, the FBI Special Agents discovered, among other things, the following items:

a. Two glass bottles both of which contained gasoline or petroleum-based products. One of these two glass bottles had a metal screw top in which a hole had been punched. The other glass bottle contained a ong white material with burnt marks.

b. One gasoline tank which had the smell of petroleum-based fluid.

c. Four boxes of bottles, which included 63 glass bottles and five plastic bottles, stored in the closet of AUSTIN's bedroom.

d. One radio remote triggering detonation device, which was modified from a radio controlled car. AUSTIN explained that he had modified this radio-controlled car to ignite matches. According to the explosive ordinance specialist, Special Agent Brendan Finn of the FBI, both the remote control unit and radio-controlled car were mechanically modified to perform only the above function.

14. At the time of the search, I observed two additional gasoline tanks and one bag of fertilizer inside the passenger compartment of AUSTIN's personal vehicle, California license number 3JGL541, a 1981 Toyota station wagon, which was parked on the street by the residence of AUSTIN.

15. On February 3, 2002, I conducted a review of a New York City Police Department police report, which told me that AUSTIN was arrested by New York Police Department (NYPD) on February 2, 2002 for unlawful assembly and disorderly conduct during a demonstration against the World Economic Forum (WEF) event at New York City, New York. AUSTIN admitted that he had traveled from Los Angeles, California to New York City, New York in his personal vehicle, California license number 3JGL541, a 1981 Toyota station wagon. AUSTIN was released by the NYPD without being charged.

16. At the time of his arrest by the NYPD, AUSTIN consented to a search of the above vehicle. The search uncovered, among other things, electrical wiring, electrical tape, one empty gasoline tank, and anarchist literature and related paraphernalia.

Sherman is charged with distribution of information, with the intent that such information be used in the furtherance of a crime (namely, arson and possession of an unregistered firearm).

Said distribution of information has been illegal since 1999, when a new subsection was signed into law as part of "A bill for the relief of Global Exploration and Development Corporation, Kerr-McGee Corporation, and Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC (successor to Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation), and for other purposes."