Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site abnjh.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!floyd!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!cbspt002 From: cbspt002@abnjh.UUCP (Marc E. Kenig ) Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Re: The latest info on the BBS confiscation case Message-ID: <669@abnjh.UUCP> Date: Tue, 5-Jun-84 15:11:13 EDT Article-I.D.: abnjh.669 Posted: Tue Jun 5 15:11:13 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 6-Jun-84 07:13:29 EDT References: <435@sri-arpa.UUCP> Organization: ATTIS, NJ Lines: 13 <> Clarification please! One cannot simply be "charged with conspiracy". He was probably charged with "conspiracy to". What is in this case? Also, did his lawyer have any plans for a suit for misappropriation of property or the California equivalent? The grounds for a conspiracy charge are tenuous, but juries also are scared by the word (it makes them paranoid). M. Kenig "Good cases make BAD LAW!" ...abnjh!cbspt002