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