Friends,

Randal told me the other day that a number of people had asked if they could
help in any way, and I talked it over with Marc and here it is:

We are asking the Oregon Supreme Court to review and overturn Randal's
conviction. Supreme Court review is discretionary, which means that they
are not required to take the case. The appellate rules contain some
guidance on the factors upon which the decision to act is based, and I will
get to those in a minute.

One of the categories we must address in the Petition for Review is as follows:

"A statement of specific reasons why the issues presented have importance
beyond the particular case and require decision by the Supreme Court."

Now, I suspect that many of you have a contribution to make in this regard
because of your personal experience(s), and we would appreciate it if you
would share any ideas you might have along these lines.

Criteria for the exercise of the court's discretion include the following:

1)Whether the case presents a significant issue of law. A significant issue
of law may include, for example: the interpretation of a statute, the
legality of an important governmental action, . . .

2) Whether the issue, or a similar issue, arises often;

3) Whether many people are affected by the decision in the case. Whether
the consequence of the decision is important to the public, even if the
issue may not arise often.

Be aware that we may not be able to respond to each and every email you send
in response to this request, so I want to thank anyone who is willing to
contribute in advance.

Please include something about yourself, especially if you have sysadmin or
related experience, and give us an idea of why you are interested in the case.
We are kicking around the idea of submitting some affidavits, which are
sworn statements of fact, with the Petition for Review. This is almost
unheard of, but there is no specific rule against it, and we are sailing in
seas that are basically uncharted from a legal point of view.

If we decide to do this, we will confer with some of you in cyberspace, I
will prepare the affidavit(s) and email them to those who agree to sign
them. They will be individualized. Signing them will require the services
of a notary, and their return must be via snail mail. We will provide
envelopes and postage.

I know that there has been much discussion of this case already, and I
apologize for having misplaced or deleted some of the posts of the distant
past. This is, however, a fresh, and relatively narrow, context for
renewing the discussions.

I don't recall whether or not copies of our opening and reply briefs in the
Court of Appeals were posted online, but if anyone wants to see how we
addressed the issues, I will be happy to provide copies as email attachments
in WP6 format. The decision of the Court of Appeals is online, and the
address has been posted elsewhere on this list.

Any and all ideas are welcome, but try to withstand the temptation to
analogize as much as possible. Arguments by analogy are not favored as a
general rule, and that is especially true in a case like this where one of
our fundamental positions is that the problem with the law is that it
analogizes between cyberspace and real property, and that the analogy is so
inept as to cause the law to be completely inapplicable to the situations
that it is intended to address.

Remember, Randal copied a password file from one Intel computer to another
Intel computer, and that was called theft. After he had done so, the
original was still in place and working just as it had before. The
situation simply can not be compared to stolen credit cards and trespasses,
and we must assume that the judges of the Supreme Court have no idea why
that is so.

Many of you know why that is so, and you have the credentials to explain it
to them credibly.

I will answer questions that come up as I can and as well as I can, however
there are restraints on my time so the answers may be a few days in coming.

Thanks, again, for your thoughts and good wishes.

LarryO