* merlyn@...
| http://www.stonehenge.com/pic/oregon-supreme-petition.pdf

I am not a lawyer, but the following caught my attention:

Paragraph marked `Reasons for review' (Page 5 in my printout), number
3), end of first paragraph:

The state s argument,that by copying passwords,defendant stripped them
of their value,actually describes conduct which damages the value of
property but does constitute a taking,appropriation or withholding of
property.

Two remarks:
- Randal did copy _password files_, not _passwords_, no? Again, I'm
not a lawyer, but I've seen them making a big fuzz about differences
like these.

- in the second part of the sentence, is there a `NOT' missing in
`...but does constitute a taking...' i.e should this read
`...but does NOT constitute a taking...'?

My $0.02, and good luck, Randal.
R'