SUBSECTION: Judge Margaret Morrow
Revised 1/8/01

Dr Raoul 11/16/99 From WABC Talk Maven Lynn Samuel's website....

"….And keep your eye on this suit against the Free Republic. You don't have to agree with this far-right wing web-site to see the danger in major media outlets suing citizens for posting articles on the Internet for the sole purpose of discussing them. What will happen if you e-mail an article to a friend. Will you be open to being sued too?

….Could there be a political reason for this? The "freepers" are far right-wingers and the two papers involved are what passes for liberal, these days. Could there be government involvement, since FR is one of the places that most despises the administration? …."



Picture of Judge Margaret Morrow Freeper Roscoe 11/14/99:


Freeper willajohns 11/14/99 from Martindale-Hubbell Lawyer Locator: "…

Los Angeles, California
(Los Angeles County)
LAW-SCHOOL: Harvard University (J.D.)
COLLEGE: Bryn Mawr College (B.A.)

Freeper Roscoe 11/14/99 discovered that Judge Margaret Morrow is married to Judge Paul Boland of the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Superior Court Judge: LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE 089
*PAUL BOLAND (Non-Partisan)
Judge of the Superior Court

1994 California Voter Information: All Active Candidates

Freeper amom 11/14/99 Summation of data gathered from

As of Dec '98 there were 63 Judges for the Central District of California
They were broken down into these categories
Chief Magistrate (1)
Chief Judge (1)
Chief Bankruptcy (1)
Senior Judges (8)
Bankruptcy Judges (20)
Magistrates (14)
U.S. District Judges (21)
Of the 21 US District Judges there are 8 with offices in the same building as M Morrow…."

Freeper amom 11/14/99 notes from

What do these people and groups have in common other than the lawsuit ? They all contributed to the LACBA (Los Angeles County Bar Association) in ‘95-’96

Margaret M Morrow (past president) as a friend category $5,000-$9,000
Rex S. Heinke (president elect ’99)as a life fellow (contributed or pledged to contribute in annual installments of at least $500-$2,500)
Times Mirror $1,000 or more
Arnold & Porter (a lawfirm M. Morrow worked for)
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (the law firm R. Heinke works for)

Freeper amom 11/14/99 summarized from

Rex S. Heinke Senior Vice-President, The Los Angeles County Bar Association
Los Angeles County Bar Association President-Elect Rex S. Heinke 1999 The Los Angeles County Bar Association

Freeper amom 11/14/99 "…Judge Morrow was president of the Los Angeles County Bar Association before serving as president of the State Bar summary:

International law firm Latham & Watkins partner, Donald P Baker, was named recipient of the 1999 Shattuck-Price Memorial Award (Los Angeles County Bar Association’s highest honor.) He currently serves on the New Lawyer Membership Task Force. Judge Margaret Morrow chaired the new Lawyer Membership Task Force. Judge Morrow received the award in 1997.

Freeper Roscoe reports FEC contribution records

10/13/92 $500.00
QUINN KULLY & MORROW -[Contribution]

9/30/92 $500.00
QUINN KULLY & MORROW -[Contribution]

Freeper Roscoe 11/16/99 reports:

"…. Margaret Morrow, the first woman president of the State Bar and current nominee for a federal judgeship, was named the recipient of the 1997 Shattuck-Price Memorial Award, the highest honor of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. She was cited for outstanding dedication to the principles of the legal profession and the administration of justice….. An appellate specialist with Arnold & Porter of Los Angeles, Morrow has advocated alternative dispute resolution, lobbied against trial court funding cuts, and as president of the LA county bar, supported minority retention and hiring goals and expanded pro bono service…."



Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher

Amom reports 11/16/99:

"…1998 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Total Lobbying Income: $2,240,000

1997 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Total Lobbying Income: $1,240,000…" "……A seven-member advisory committee, chaired by a state appellate justice, has been appointed to review the operations and procedures used by the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation (JNE) which investigates and rates judicial candidates for the governor, State Bar President James E. Towery announced today. Towery has named California Court of Appeal Associate Justice James D. Ward (chair); Ophelia B. Basgal, executive director of Alameda County's Housing Authority (vice-chair); Terrance W. Flanigan, a partner in a public policy advocacy firm in Sacramento; Rex S. Heinke, a law firm partner in Los Angeles; and three State Bar board members. The appointees from the board include Maurice L. Evans, Oran...Rex S. Heinke, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Los Angeles, specializes in cases involving First Amendment and other constitutional issues, as well as intellectual property, entertainment and appellate law. He co-chairs the firm's Intellectual Property group. He also serves as chair of the Los Angeles County Bar Association's Judicial Election Evaluations Committee and as a trustee for the association. …." article 12/6/99 "……What's This Boutique Got That Gibson Doesn't? ..."To the extent we've talked about his reasons, Rex has said he wanted someplace smaller, where he would have more control and more latitude," Bostwick says. "Someplace where he didn't need to get approval for every little thing." Like what? Well, Heinke says, there was the approval he needed before Gibson, Dunn would allow an associate to attend the Practicing Law Institute. The same associate, by the way, ended up going with him to Greines, Martin. Heinke cites it as an example of why he wanted the "flexibility" of a far smaller, more informal firm. Other examples include the attractions of a workplace where people don't wear ties unless they're due in court, where conflict-of-interest checks are quick and efficient,

Quinn, Kelly & Morrow

Quinn, Kully & Morrow were contributors to the Constitutional Rights Foundation in 1996. "....Constitutional Rights Foundation (CRF) is a non-profit, non-partisan, community-based organization dedicated to educating America's young people about the importance of civic participation in a democratic society. Under the guidance of a Board of Directors chosen from the worlds of law, business, government, education, the media, and the community, CRF develops, produces, and distributes programs and materials to teachers, students, and public-minded citizens all across the nation....."

An article titled Golden Rules by James I. Ham a partner in Quinn, Kully & Morrow. The article concerns 1995 decisions and opinions concerning ethics...

Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn and Rossi

Freeper Roscoe reports 11/17/99: AMENDED STATEMENT OF PARTNERSHIP

The undersigned, constituting two of the partners at Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn & Rossi, a general partnership created under the laws of the State of California, hereby declare that:

1. The name of the partnership is Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn & Rossi.

2. The names of the partners are Stuart L. Kadison, Alan R. Woodard, a Professional Corporation, Thomas J. McDermott, Jr., Russel I. Kully, Anthony J. Rossi, Joseph A. Murray, Jr., Richard S. Cohen, Richard C. Smith, Richard K. Simon, a Professional Corporation, Paul R. Walker, a Professional Corporation, Philip J. Mause, Richard T. Williams, James Goldman, Margaret M. Morrow, Terence S. Nunan, John G. johnson, Jr., Carl W. Northrop, James C. Roberts, Lee L. Blackman, Craig N. Hentschel, Lawrence J. Hutt, John B. Miles, Howard O. Boltz, Jr., J. David Oswalt, Gregory C. Fant, Norman A. Pedersen, John C. Funk, Paul B. George, Lawrence A. Cox, Polly Horn, Jeffrey K. Riffer and Thomas K. Brown.


This statement was executed on February 4, 1986, in Los Angeles, California.

Russell I. Kully
Gregory C. Fant

May 23, 1994 RACHELLE B. CHONG SWORN IN AS FCC COMMISSIONER After swift confirmation by the Senate on May 19, 1994,Rachelle B. Chong was sworn in today as a member of the Federal Communications Commission. She is the first Asian-American to serve on the Commission. A Republican, Ms. Chong was nominated by President Clinton to fill the vacancy left by the Honorable Sherrie Marshall. The term began on July 1, 1992 and ends on June 30, 1997. For the last seven years, Ms. Chong was a partner with the San Francisco office of the international law firm of Graham &James. She practiced telecommunications law before the California Public Utilities Commission on behalf of cellular telephone carriers, radio common carriers, and developers of innovative telecommunications devices. Prior to joining Graham &James, she practiced law from 1984-1986 with the now-defunct Washington, D.C. law firm of Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn &Rossi. There, she represented mass media clients and cellular license applicants before the FCC...."

"....May 11, 1990 The President [Bush] today announced his intention to nominate Robert C. Bonner to be Administrator of Drug Enforcement at the Department of Justice. He would succeed John C. Lawn. Since 1989 Mr. Bonner has served as U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California in Los Angeles. Prior to this, he served as U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, 1984 - 1989; in the private practice of law with the firm of Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn and Rossi, 1975 - 1984; Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, 1971 - 1975; and a law clerk to U.S. District Judge Albert Stephens, 1966 - 1967....."

Freeper Roscoe 11/17/99 "…. The name Pfaelzer comes from the first husband of U.S. District Court Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer. Wealthy Philadelphia lawyer, left his wife and children for much younger Mariana. Large "political contributions" to President Jimmy Carter bought her a District Court nomination. She also got a piece of the firm when he died, as I recall. Mariana Pfaelzer is the judge who overturned Proposition 187, and ordered California to continue providing free public educations for illegal aliens…."


Arnold & Porter

".... THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary ...For Immediate Release January 7, 1997 PRESIDENT NOMINATES TWENTY TWO TO THE FEDERAL BENCH The President today nominated Marjorie Rendell to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Pennsylvania and Helene White to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Michigan. He also resubmitted to the Senate the following, each of whom was nominated to the federal bench during the 104th Congress:

.... Margaret M. Morrow has been a shareholder at the Los Angeles law firm of Quinn, Kully & Morrow since 1987. Previously, she was a partner at the law firm of Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn & Rossi. At both firms she pursued a civil litigation practice. Morrow earned her J.D. degree from Harvard Law School and her A.B. degree from Bryn Mawr College. She and her husband, Paul Boland, have one child and live in Pasadena...."

Alamo-Girl: Curiously, Arnold & Porter are not mentioned here...

Amom: The California Bar Journal is where I found her as a partner with Arnold & Porter

Later that day, the following was uncovered:

"...... In 1991, Arnold & Porter was the first Washington-based law firm to establish an office on the west coast. In the fall of 1996, responding to increased demand from clients based in the Western United States, or with operations in the region, we expanded our Los Angeles office by joining forces with the leading trial and appellate practice of Quinn, Kully and Morrow. These colleagues include, among others, Jack Quinn who has served as president of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. The addition of the attorneys from this veteran litigation firm substantially enhanced Arnold & Porter's capacity to provide top-quality legal services to corporations and individuals in California and the West. More than 40 lawyers now practice in our Los Angeles office, and our multi-disciplinary specialties, complemented by our offices in other major cities, enable Arnold & Porter to provide the seamless national representation our clients demand and deserve....."


Freeper amom 11/14/99 from the Arnold & Porter web site

"…Arnold & Porter has represented clients involved in information technology for decades. Our expertise in this area was first developed in, among other areas, joint ventures, licensing and patent litigation. That experience led to the establishment of our Intellectual Property & Technology Practice Group, which works with the firm's other practice groups in representing information technology companies. Our clients in the information technology industries range from a variety of start-up businesses and nonprofit organizations to Fortune 500 companies.

Our lawyers are actively involved in virtually all facets of the information technology industries. We have worked with clients in industry sectors such as computer hardware and software, telecommunications, entertainment, multimedia and information content, and on-line and Internet services. We also work with corporate and other consumers of information technology products and services.

Some of our better known information technology clients include:

America Online
American Mobile Satellite Corporation
Andersen Consulting
Digital City
Mitre Corporation
Recording Industry Association of America
SBC Communications

The Internet We have counseled extensively on Internet and communications network issues. Our work has ranged from intellectual property licensing and infringement issues to electronic commerce, bank regulation, legislative, domain name registration, privacy, defamation, security, encryption, and export control matters, among others….."

Alamo-Girl note: Motorola and various aspects of satellite and communications industries (such as American Mobile Satellite Corporation, Hughes and Telecom) are significant topics on Free Republic. Infringement issues are involved in the current WP/LAT v FR/JR lawsuit. The Arnold & Porter information was previously unknown to the forum. 1999 Dan Jacobson

"….On August 4, 1992, presidential candidate Bill Clinton and his running mate, Al Gore sat silently near the front of the large National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. They had postponed a bus tour of campaigning in the Midwest, and were attending the funeral services for C. Victor Raiser II, the national co-chairman of finance for Clinton’s 1992 campaign.

Raiser had taken a brief pause from his grueling schedule to do some fishing for salmon in Alaska with his son Montgomery, and C. Taylor Kew, Raiser’s longtime friend from his home town of Buffalo, New York. A deHavilland Beaver floatplane was carrying these three men and three other passengers to a remote fishing lodge.

The pilot, seeing the clouds were too low to make it over a pass, tried to turn around in a narrow valley when the engine stalled, and the plane hit the side of a mountain. Only the pilot and Kew survived the crash, both suffering serious burns. Kew made a partial recovery in an Anchorage hospital, but a month after the crash (the day after returning home to Buffalo) he collapsed and died.

The report of the crash issued by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) states that the pilot was diagnosed with a diabetic condition upon admission to the hospital after the crash. The pilot had no record of any diabetic condition before the accident. The NTSB ruled the probable cause of the accident as pilot error.

Mr. Raiser was an influential man; Clinton and Gore were not the only important dignitaries attending his funeral. He was a prominent fixture in the affairs of the Democratic Party. Among many important positions he held were chairman of the American Mobile Satellite Corporation, the national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and a position on the board of advisers of the Democratic Leadership Council….."

"....American Mobile Satellite Corporation offers a full range of mobile communications including telephone, digital broadcast dispatch, data and position reporting services with coverage over the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and hundreds of miles of U.S. coastal waters. American Mobile's shareholders include Hughes Communications, Inc., Singapore Telecom, and AT&T Wireless Services...."

"....Washington - March 26, 1998 - Hughes Space and Communications has won a contract to build to HS702 satellites for American Mobile Radio Corp (AMRC) that will provide program signals directly to car radios across North America. Financial terms were not disclosed. ...The contract calls for Hughes to deliver the satellites in geosynchronous orbit in April and August 2000, respectively. AMRC has an option for a third satellite. Launch vehicles will be announced later....... AMRC is one of only two companies licensed in the United States to provide Digital Audio Radio Service. AMRC is a privately held company owned by American Mobile Satellite and WorldSpace Inc., both high-technology telecommunications companies headquartered in the Washington area......Alcatel designs, manufactures and markets complete telecommunications systems. Activities include fixed switching networks, transmission systems, access systems, mobile communications infrastructure, business networking and submarine cable networks, as well as radio communications, space and defense systems. With operations in over 130 countries, Alcatel is a leading-edge supplier in the majority of its business. In 1997, the Telecom segment of Alcatel Alsthom registered total sales of more than 83 billion French francs...".

Alamo-Girl: Earlier today [11/16/99] we discovered the firm of Quinn, Kully and Morrow was joined with Arnold & Porter in the fall of 1996. In President Clinton’s announcement on 1/7/97 that he was resubmitting Margaret Morrow for confirmation, he mentioned she had been a shareholder of Quinn, Kully & Morrow since 1987 – he omitted to mention Arnold & Porter even though by that time they had been joined. That omission peaked our curiosity and we’ve been looking into this all day. Here’s what amom has uncovered: summarized by amom

Arnold & Porter's work includes lobbying Congress, the White House, Executive Branch departments and federal regulatory agencies, as well as state governments. They represented a former White House counsel in the House and Senate Whitewater hearings. Helped draft testimony, prepared the client for congressional hearings, worked closely with senators, representatives and staff on issues that might arise at the hearing and made press presentations emphasizing our client's position. They represented major pharmaceutical and medical device companies on product safety issues, serving as national counsel for such clients as Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc. and Pfizer Inc. They are national counsel for a blood-banking organization in cases brought by individuals who allege to have contracted the AIDS virus from blood transfusions. They represented Philip Morris Inc. in lawsuits seeking to hold the company liable for illnesses allegedly caused by smoking. They represented the governments of Brazil, Israel, Panama, Turkey and Venezuela in offerings including "Brady" bond exchange offers and bonds convertible from several European currencies into Euros. Their lawyers counsel a broad coalition of high-tech firms, trade associations and other parties seeking reform of the U.S. export policy on encryption products.

We know Arnold & Porter are lobbyists, and their clients include Motorola, American Mobile Satellite Corporation, and they counsel on export policy, and encryption. Iridium was a Motorola venture and the satellite company has a launch deal with Hughes - these considerations may need a closer look at the second degree to see if we need to track more in relation to Arnold & Porter as well. Summaries and excerpts from the DSL on some of the key people and events related to these subjects:

While at Commerce, Sockowitz, a 1992 Clinton/Gore fundraiser, held a top-secret clearance and kept classified files in a safe. After being transferred to the SBA (without a debriefing) he came back to Commerce and remove 136 files. After he left the SBA he was not debriefed. He now works for the Strategic Planning Group in Bethesda, Md., an international business consulting firm. Justice stopped looking into the security breach matter in December '96 without ever talking to Sockowitz, or his boss whom he followed to SBA, Ms. Lew. Nolanda Hill told Judge Lamberth in March of 1998 that Brown worried that Sockowitz might have ''funneled information to others.''

Among the files of Ira Sockowitz was ''A Study of the International Market for Computer Software With Encryption.'' The CIA marked portions of this report ''secret,'' and the U.S. Bureau of Export Administration said disclosure could ''damage the national security by revealing export control problems that could be exploited to the detriment of the United States.'' Sockowitz also got documents on satellite encryptions from Hoyt Zia, chief counsel for Commerce's Bureau of Export Administration. Zia is a former Democratic National Committee fund-raiser and close friend of Huang.

Also in the Sockowitz files were memos, notes, and file folders from Commerce and the National Security Council on encryption or decoding software, exports and policy options; Satellite-project information; "Space Launch;" "Uranium from Russia;" A CIA report on Russian economic development; and Biographies on foreign political leaders in Bosnia, Croatia, India, Turkey, and Russia.

There are curious connections between Commerce and a Washington based multi-billion dollar satellite company called Iridium, a company created in 1987 with direct ties to late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and the Democratic party. Leo Mondale, a nephew of the former vice president, is vice president of strategic planning for Iridium. Mondale and Motorola executive Edward Staino hired four of Brown's former employees with high level security clearances to help run Iridium's project on worldwide telecommunications. Motorola also took part in Brown trade-mission trips.

In May of 1995 a former assistant secretary of Commerce, Lauri Fitz-Pegado, a long-time friend of Brown and special adviser to the chairman of the DNC, became vice president of the Iridium division called Global Gateway Management. Her responsibilities at Iridium include coordinating meetings and trips with international investors. She was joined there by her former Commerce assistants Pilar Martinez, Charlotte Kea and Andrew Balfour, who was a director under the executive secretary for Commerce.

Dr. Edward F Staiano Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Iridium LLC and Chairman, Iridium World Communications, Ltd. before joining Iridium LLC was a 23-year veteran of Motorola credited with growing Motorola's General Systems Sector to record levels. The sector is composed of cellular infrastructure, cellular equipment, computer, and network management businesses.

Robert Kinzie Chairman, Iridium LLC before joining Iridium was the Director of Strategic Planning for the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT) - the 121 member-country international organization, which owns and operates the global commercial communications satellite system. Mr. Kinzie also has over 20 years experience in the satellite communications industry with the Communications Satellite Corporation (COMSAT). From 1962 to 1965, Mr. Kinzie was an economist at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. He also held positions at the U.S. Bureau of the Census and was on the staff of a United States Congressman.

8/28/98 Masood Haider DAWN (Pakistan) "The brother of Osama bin Laden is a director of a US telecom giant, Irridium LLC, according to reports. Although the Clinton administration has made Osama the world's most wanted man, the rest of the family does millions of dollars in business with the US, reports say. Sheikh Hasan bin Laden, one of Osama's many brothers in a Saudi family of immense wealth and far-flung enterprises, is listed by the Securities and Exchange Commission as a director of Iridium LLC, the New York newspaper Daily News said.."

USA Today 10/28/99 Kelly "…."The businessmen, who are worth more than $5 billion, are paying bin Laden "protection money" to stave off attacks on their businesses in Saudi Arabia, intelligence officials said. Bin Laden, whose family runs the largest Saudi construction firm, has called for the overthrow of the Saudi government. The money transfers were discovered in April after the royal family ordered an audit of NCB and its founder and former chairman, Khalid bin Mahfouz, U.S. officials say. Mahfouz is now under "house arrest" at a military hospital in the Saudi city of Taif, intelligence officials said. His successor, Mohammad Hussein Al-Amoudi, also heads the Capitol Trust Bank in New York and London, which U.S. and British officials are investigating for allegedly transferring money to bin Laden. Amoudi's Washington lawyer, Vernon Jordan, could not be reached for comment……" 10/29/99 AP "….A Saudi government audit obtained by U.S. intelligence shows that five top Saudi Arabian businessmen ordered the National Commercial Bank, the kingdom's largest, to transfer personal funds and $3 million from a Saudi pension fund to New York and London banks, the newspaper said. It said the money was deposited into accounts of Islamic charities, including Islamic Relief and Blessed Relief, that serve as fronts for bin Laden. Bin Laden, whose family runs the largest construction company in Saudi Arabia, has called for the overthrow of the Saudi government. USA Today quoted the further unidentified U.S. intelligence officials as saying the payments are ``protection money'' aimed at staving off attacks on the businessmen's properties. The money transfers were discovered in August after the Saudi royal family ordered an audit of the National Commercial Bank and its founder and former chairman, Khalid bin Mahfouz, the U.S. officials said….." 4/27/99 (Charles Smith) "...The Galaxy New Technology deal went public in 1996, drawing a firestorm of press and a GAO report. According to the GAO, "Defense Department officials told us that broadband telecommunications equipment could be used to improve the Chinese military's command and control communications networks." In 1997, Congressman Hyde wrote Attorney General Reno a letter outlining his concerns about Galaxy New Technology. According to Congressman Hyde's letter to Reno, "In 1994, sophisticated telecommunications technology was transferred to a U.S.-Chinese joint venture called HUA MEI, in which the Chinese partner is an entity controlled by the Chinese military. This particular transfer included fiber-optic communications equipment which is used for high-speed, secure communications over long distances. Also included in the package was advanced encryption software." Despite the GAO, Congress and the public press reports, the honorable General Janet Reno did nothing...."

Insight 9/1/97 Tim Maier concerning Sockowitz ". "He knew what he was doing," says one congressional investigator. "He had to. He held one of the highest level of clearance - top secret with code word." . "He is another Craig Livingstone," says one congressional investigator, referring to the bouncer and political operative who became White House security chief and resigned after supervising the illegal acquisition of 900 FBI files on Reagan and Bush appointees. Congressional investigators believe Sockowitz zeroed in on these files because they were a hot commodity in an explosive high-tech market. So hot were they that in November the CIA "blocked access" and prevented House investigators from viewing the documents taken by Sockowitz even though the investigators had all the proper clearances. "

Wall Street Journal 4/14/98 Editorial "…President Clinton approved the transfer of missile guidance technology to China at the behest of the largest personal contributor to the Democratic Party. He granted the needed waiver despite an ongoing Department of Justice criminal investigation of the same company's earlier transfer of similar technology: a Pentagon study concluding that in the earlier episode "United States national security has been harmed." That is the essence of a report yesterday by Jeff Gerth of the New York Times (who also reported the original Whitewater story in 1992) concerning satellite launch technology provided by Loral Space and Communications and Hughes Electronics, a subsidiary of General Motors. Loral Chairman Bernard L. Schwartz topped the personal contributions list in 1997; his 1994 trip to China with Commerce Secretary Ron Brown was quickly followed by a memo to the President from Harold Ickes saying Mr. Schwartz "is prepared to do anything he can for the Administration." Lobbying jointly with Hughes Chairman C. Michael Armstrong, who has gone on to head AT&T, Mr. Schwartz succeeded in softening licensing requirements for export of guidance technology to China…."

Softwar 3/10/99 Charles Smith "…COSTIND Lt. General Shen met with Ron Brown and CEO of Loral Bernard Schwartz in 1994. General Shen's son, Shen Jun, was also the lead engineer for satellite software at Hughes. …"

WorldNetDaily 3/30/99 Charles Smith "…General Ding and the PLA also passed money directly to Clinton through various agents such as Johnny Chung and Charlie Trie. In exchange, the PRC warlords got access to U.S. secrets other than W88 nuclear bombs. For example, Lt. General Shen's son, Shen Jun, was the lead software engineer for Hughes on all Chinese satellites. Loral provided the PLA with radiation-hardened encrypted telemetry control systems such as the missing board of chips from the 1996 Intelsat crash. In fact, according to the State Department, Loral satellite CDMA communications technology was preferred by the PLA. According to a 1996 Department of State cable to President Clinton by Beijing Ambassador Sasser, the PLA was using money from Chinese billionaire Li Ka-Shing to finance Chinese army communications systems….."

Reuters 3/18/00 Jim Wolf "…..Iridium LLC, a bankrupt $5 billion satellite telephone service, entered the history books on Saturday as one of the costliest corporate fiascoes of all time. The Washington-based company said it was cutting off telephone service to its 55,000 customers as of 11:59 p.m. on Friday, a prelude to court-ordered liquidation. Iridium's last act will be to ``de-orbit'' -- and ultimately burn up -- its constellation of 66 satellites now 485 miles high, which was the first to make staying connected possible from any spot on Earth. The network has been reported to have cost $5 billion to $7 billion. ….Bringing the satellites back must be coordinated with several U.S. government agencies. Motorola said it would take up to two years to burn up the last of the satellites in the atmosphere. Motorola, which held 18 percent of Iridium, the largest stake, said it would ``maintain'' the network while the de-orbiting plan was finalized, an apparent reference to steering the satellites away from danger. ……"

From Judicial Watch: At the July 18, 1997 and August 1, 1997 deposition of Fitz-Pegado, Judicial Watch discovered she and at least three (3) other former Clinton Commerce Department employees, who also had access to top-secret classified information, left Commerce and went to work for Iridium World Communications, Ltd.(370) Iridium is a multi-billion dollar company that is building a global wireless communication network that will enable subscribers to communicate using handheld telephones and pagers virtually anywhere in the world.(371) Iridium's global network operates through combining a series of low-orbit satellites with land-based wireless systems. The sixty-six (66) low-earth-orbit satellites communicate with each other through encrypted messages. Iridium is owned, in part, by state-controlled entities in China, Russia and India.(372) These are the same three (3) countries that were the subject of classified intelligence data secretly removed by Sockowitz from the Clinton Commerce Department and stored in his safe at the SBA.(373)

……..Obviously, Iridium stood to benefit enormously from the sensitive satellite encryption and telecommunications data that Sockowitz apparently removed from his safe at the Clinton Commerce Department and later kept in his safe at the SBA. Also, Fitz-Pegado seemingly had few qualifications for either her Clinton Commerce Department position, or her Iridium position, and ostensibly was hired because she was a close confidante of Secretary Brown and had accompanied him on trade missions.(374) It is more likely that Fitz-Pegado and her staff were extremely attractive to Iridium and its foreign joint-venture partners because they had access to top-secret, classified national security information while at the Clinton Commerce Department.

......,,The Clinton Administration's transfer to the Commerce Department of the power to control exports of highly sensitive technology, without even minimally adequate measures to properly protect that information, raises serious national security questions. Moreover, the revolving door uncovered by Judicial Watch raises the additional concern that highly sensitive information may have already been compromised. Were the individuals at the Clinton Commerce Department approving technology transfers to China on behalf of, or to aid companies they planned to work for after leaving the government? ……"



More Information on Encryption Technology, Exports and Motorola

Worldnetdaily 11/16/99 Charles Smith

"…. The GAO also noted why the PLAAF needed American encryption technology. The GAO wrote, "China lacks command and control capabilities needed to effectively integrate its armed forces in the fast-moving joint offensive operations called for by its new doctrine. China's air force units are hampered in their ability to communicate with air defense, naval, and ground units." The advanced encryption technology translates into secure air combat communications for the PLAAF. The Chinese army can now use modern encryption code systems to establish secure links with its missiles and men in combat. In addition, U.S. Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite navigation technology was also passed to China under the guise of commercial airline technology. …."

American Foreign Policy Council, Washington, DC 11/17/99 Al Santoli

"….Motorola Electronics Ltd. is setting up the Motorola China Research and Development Institute, which will oversee operations of 18 research and development centers scattered throughout mainland China and Hong Kong, reports Xinhua news agency. By 2001 the Institute will build seven more such centers in China and increase the number of researchers from 650 to around 1,000. Since opening its representative office in Beijing in 1987, Motorola has invested $1 billion in China. …."

INSIGHT Magazine 12/29/99 Kenneth Timmerman

"……On April 28, 1993, Motorola signed a contract with China Great Wall Industries Corp., or CGWIC, the marketing department of China Aerospace, to launch 12 of its Iridium global-communication satellites. As part of the contract the Chinese agreed to develop a "smart dispenser" allowing them to launch several satellites from a single rocket. Earlier Chinese attempts to develop such a dispenser had failed. . . . . But according to the defector, help from U.S. engineers changed all that: "Our U.S. partners gave us the specifications and technical assistance to produce the dispenser," he said, adding that engineers from Hexi traveled to Lockheed and Motorola facilities in the United States to exchange data and tweak their design. The exchanges caught the eye of U.S. intelligence analysts who were alarmed at the capabilities being transferred to an agency responsible for designing Chinese ICBMs….."

INSIGHT Magazine 12/29/99 Kenneth Timmerman

"….. The Chinese first demonstrated the dispenser in September 1997, successfully lofting two test satellites into orbit. Just two months later commercial launches began. . . . . Lockheed developed and built the dispenser system used by Motorola to deliver Iridium satellites from U.S. rockets. A company spokesman said that Lockheed had no direct dealings with the Chinese on the project, since all the licenses were held by Motorola.. . . . Motorola says the licenses it obtained from the Clinton administration allowed it to share data with the Chinese to ensure that the dispenser system worked. . . . . The company also has acknowledged that it supplied the Chinese with exploding bolts, which are used for stage separation -- another key rocket technology incorporated into the DF-31….."

American Spectator 11/30/99 Kenneth Timmerman

"…. Ronald Pandolfi was the CIA's highest ranking scientist when he visited the headquarters of Hughes Space and Communications in El Segundo, California in 1996. Pandolfi was part of a CIA team preparing a new National Intelligence Estimate on the PRC's military science and technology. To complete his research, Pandolfi had been instructed to visit a number of U.S. defense and high-tech companies trading with Communist China. Hughes company officials explained that after one of their Optus telecommunications satellites was destroyed in January 1995 during launch, they sent a technical team to China to examine why China's Long March rocket had failed. Pandolfi asked them if they had U.S. government permission to share technical information with the Chinese. By the time he left Hughes, accompanied by a female CIA liaison officer for Southern California, Pandolfi was carrying a copy of the Hughes launch failure report….. But Pandolfi never made it out the door--at least, not with the report. According to TAS sources, the Hughes official asked Pandolfi to wait while he checked on the classification level of the accident report--a report that Hughes had already given to its Chinese partners. Hughes ultimately turned the report over to the CIA and to several congressional committees, but not before Pandolfi was victimized for reporting on Hughes's questionable relationship with the Chinese. Pandolfi's CIA escort wrote a memo to the head of the China military analysis office, John Culver. She warned Culver that Pandolfi had shown unusual interest in obtaining the Hughes damage report, which could spell trouble for the Agency…… Before long, Pandolfi was asked by the Senate Intelligence Committee to testify on the incident. Eager to head off any further leaks of information to a team of congressional investigators scheduled to visit Hughes, Culver wrote a memo to the CIA's California field office, urging it to warn Hughes that Congress was starting to poke into the affair. Culver's letter triggered a Justice Department investigation of the CIA for obstruction of justice, which is still being debated by a grand jury. After Pandolfi testified in closed session before Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), he was removed from the China division and put to work on developing alternative energy sources. "In other words, he was given an empty office, without a telephone or a computer," one source familiar with the case said……"

"…..The current top legal cop at BXA [Bureau of Export Administration at the Commerce Department] is Hoyt Zia and he is having a bit of a legal problem himself. Zia has commanded legal affairs at BXA since 1994. Yet, since 1994 AT&T, Motorola and RSA would all cut some sort of export deal on advanced encryption for China. The AT&T deal (Hua Mei) enabled China to obtain advanced fiber optic ATM technology and secure encryption systems. The GAO wrote an entire report on how the Commerce Department allowed secure communications equipment to be sold to a company owned by two Generals of the Chinese Army. Additionally, Hoyt Zia was also employed by Motorola for six years prior to his current job at Commerce. This would seem to pose a certain problem with conflict of interest especially when he also has oversight on Motorola exports….."

…. This author has shown that other Commerce Department associates of Zia were very interested in RSA. Ginger Lew, the top legal counsel at Commerce, met with RSA Chairman Bidzos in a failed attempt to purchase RSA patents for encryption technology. Ira Sockowitz, the expert who reviewed all business travelers who went overseas with Ron Brown, accumulated an entire secret file on RSA. One would expect Zia would have reviewed the RSA "research" deal and verified it as a-okay. Of course, since RSA is the leading US encryption software company, one also would expect Zia to be familiar with the billion dollar firm. However, Zia claimed under oath he had never heard of RSA.

….Finally, Mr. Zia also has some unusual connections with John Huang, and donations raised for the 96 Clinton/Gore campaign. In 1996 Zia would leave his BXA post at the end of each day and truck over to DNC headquarters. Zia worked closely with Huang on the Clinton re-election and they would often meet at DNC headquarters….. Zia called Huang from his Maryland home and offered his assistance during Mr. Huang's "legal troubles". This would not be so bad except at the time of Zia's calls... John Huang was hiding from US Marshals. …"

"….The following materials have been obtained using the Freedom of Information Act. The first document is a Feb. 1995 letter to Ron Brown seeking his assistance for a Presidential waiver for encryption technology to China written by Motorola CEO Gary Tooker. This letter was obtained from the U.S. Commerce Dept. …One suggestion that Tooker made to Brown was "Delegate to the export control officer appropriate authority for reviewing certain classes of controls, e.g., encryption export controls administered by the State Department at the behest of the National Security Agency (NSA) should NOT be referred for endless delay to the human rights bureau and myriad others in State."

….The second document is a fax letter from Motorola's Dr. Richard Barth which was cc'd to various players such as George Tenet inside the White House National Security Council (NSC). This document was obtained from the White House National Security Council. ….Richard Barth sought a Presidential waiver for Motorola to sell encrypted radios to China. Barth wrote "I urge you to get in writing to the State Department asap language that seeks a waiver for 'cellular, PCS and two way radio systems,' as recently agreed". …Furthermore, Barth also opened the door for additional encryption systems. Barth wrote "while we now are not yet applying for licenses for encrypted systems for satellite system positioning, we may within months be applying for such licenses for our Iridium systems." …"

World Net Daily/Human Events 3/27/00 Terence Jeffrey "……When consumer advocate Ralph Nader a few years ago asked the managers of Motorola if they would please say the Pledge of Allegiance at their annual shareholders meetings, the company responded with indignation. "Motorola will not be adopting Mr. Nader's suggestion," said senior corporate counsel Carol Forsyte. "We believe that by doing so we would be introducing political and nationalistic overtones which have nothing to do [with] the true purpose of a stockholders meeting." This begged an obvious question: If Motorola will not pledge allegiance to the American republic -- "one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" -- to what will it pledge allegiance? One answer to that question can be found today on a website the company has posted in the People's Republic of China, which is linked to its U.S. website. A page on this Chinese site -- subtitled "China and Motorola reach for the sky" -- lists the company's achievements in the PRC under the following categories:

* "Investments and technology transfer"
* "Management localization and training"
* "Local sourcing"
* "Joint development: joint ventures and cooperative projects"
* "Cooperative projects: joint technology development"
* "Corporate citizenship"

This is the sort of language one would expect from a nationalist corporation -- looking out for the interests of China. Just as General Motors could boast half a century ago, "What's good for General Motors is good for America," Motorola seems to be boasting today, "What's good for Motorola is good for China." …..A Lech Walesa in China today would have to strike against Motorola. So, what is Motorola doing now to alter China's political status? It has launched an all-out lobbying effort in Washington to give the Chinese regime Permanent Normal Trade Relations with the United States and membership in the World Trade Organization, where it would have a vote equal to that of the United States. ….."



Freeper wooly_mammoth on RSA:

Ohmlaw00 research on "Albert Gore Jr., Sanford Robertson, RSA/Security Dynamics and Encryption Exports to China:

INSIGHT, 11/17/97, by Charles R. Smith and Douglas Burton "….Some lawmakers concerned about RSA's "joint-research" project wonder whether the Clinton administration is preaching strong control of encryption and practicing the opposite. Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican and Chairman of the House National Security subcommittee on Military Research and Development, is one. "We have been working with the administration to slow the availability of selling encryption technology to developing countries like China," Weldon told Insight, adding: "If this [joint research] is the case, it is treason." Weldon said he was "dismayed that the administration was leading the effort to sell this kind of technology to an adversary." He also complained that if the "administration had sold out its own tough policy against encryption exports in exchange for campaign donations this could be grounds for impeachment."

Gore's China scandal", 9/15/98, World Net Daily, Charles Smith * ... A 1996 secret memo on a secret meeting of DCIA Deutch, FBI Director Freeh and Attorney General Janet Reno states: "The Vice President [Gore] chairs the senior group that set the Administration's encryption policy; since February 1994 it has been supported by a working group co-chaired by NSC, and OMB, composed of NSA, CIA, FBI, State, Commerce (BXA, NIST), and Justice."

……In 1995, Sanford Robertson also had a big financial interest in the U.S. computer security industry. Robertson's investment firm had hundreds of millions of dollars tied up in a Massachusetts based computer company named Security Dynamics Inc. (SDI). Thus, in 1995 Gore had direct control of policy that also affected Robertson financially.

……Security Dynamics was able to import computer security hardware manufactured in China. SDI secured Hong Kong electronics maker RJP Industries to produce electronic computer security cards for sale in America. The Chinese manufactured cards are sold to major defense contractors, medical institutions and the U.S. government…."

INSIGHT, 11/17/97, by Charles R. Smith and Douglas Burton * Vice President Al Gore said he did not violate the law by making phone calls for donations from the White House..... But whether California investment banker Sanford Robertson's investment firm reaped rich rewards soon after Robertson made a large donation to the Democratic National Committee, or DNC, in 1996 there can be little doubt.

……Three months later Robertson's investment banking firm, Robertson Stephens & Co. raked in a financial advisors fee of $2 million for its role in aiding the merger of two large computer security firms, RSA Data Security Inc., or RSA - the largest US encryption software company - and Security Dynamics Technologies Inc. or SDTI, shortly after RSA had obtained an exclusive deal to pursue encryption research with the People's Republic of China. The merger of the two companies took place three months after an agreement was signed between James Bidzos, head of RSA, and the Chinese government for the purpose of performing joint research on encryption.

……RSA is a leading-edge company in developing "public-key encryption" a type of strong encryption that allows the sender and the receiver to exchange messages without the need to meet beforehand and exchange keys. RSA's product is used by banking and financial institutions to send and verify transfers of funds and is considered the industry's standard means of funds verification….."

INSIGHT, 11/17/97, by Charles R. Smith and Douglas Burton * .....Bidzos, who stood to gain a great deal from the China deal, donated nothing to the DNC. However, the following sequence of events is worth noting: According to SEC documents filed at the time of the merger, SDTI President Charles Stuckey discussed with Bidzos the possibility of merging their two companies in November 1995, just a month after Bidzos had made a preliminary visit to the People's Republic of China. Within days of that meeting, Robertson's name was on Al Gore's call list. In late January of 1996, Robertson's $100,000 was received by the Democrats in Washington. A few days later, Bidzos signed the MOU with China; three months later SDTI merges with RSA to the mutual benefit of all parties.

Gore's China scandal", 9/15/98, World Net Daily, Charles Smith * The Chinese army, Sanford Robertson, Al Gore and Ron Brown shared an interest in computer security technology. California-based RSA Inc. is the only U.S. company that has ever been able to secure any export deal on encryption with China. Documentation held by the Commerce Department and taken by former DNC fundraiser Ira Sockowitz shows that RSA was able to obtain a trade deal with the Chinese government through a Commerce sponsored trade conference to Beijing in October 1995. In fact, both the Chairman of RSA, Jim Bidzos, and Ron Brown met in October of 1995 with Madam Wu Yi, head of China's MOFTEC (Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation).

Gore's China scandal", 9/15/98, World Net Daily, Charles Smith * Al Gore also had previous legal contact with RSA Inc. in 1994. According to RSA CEO James Bidzos, in March 1994 Gore sent government lawyers to RSA in a failed effort to purchase patents on encryption technology held by his company. Curiously, the envoy Gore selected to send was John Huang's boss, Commerce counsel Ginger Lew. Even more curious is the fact that Lew claimed to know nothing about encryption in her deposition for Judicial Watch.

Gore's China scandal", 9/15/98, World Net Daily, Charles Smith * In February 1996, only days after Robertson had kicked in his $100,000 to the Clinton/Gore campaign, RSA announced the China encryption export deal. In April 1996, Robertson's Security Dynamics Inc. bought RSA for $296 million above the stock value. Robertson's investment firm was paid $2 million just to write the merger document. Thus, Robertson financially benefited from the same company that Gore had previously engaged in secret government negotiations. Robertson gained $2 million for a $100,000 investment in less than 90 days.

INSIGHT, 11/17/97, by Charles R. Smith and Douglas Burton * .......among the classified files removed by Commerce Official Ira Sockowitz and hidden in a personal safe at the Small Business Administration (see "Commerce-ial Espionage?" Sept. 1 Insight) were files marked "RSA" and "encryption exports."

INSIGHT, 11/17/97, by Charles R. Smith and Douglas Burton * ....... Although, Robertson denies he talked to Gore on the phone, he has backed Clinton since the 1992 campaign and has met the President and Vice President. In October 1992, Robertson held a fund-raising dinner party for Clinton, Gore and 70 Silicon Valley and high tech executives at his home in San Francisco. The dinner raised $400,000. Robertson also lent $100,000 to Clinton's 1993 inaugural, according to a White House report of November, 1996. Robertson told Insight that the latter figure was wrong and his gifts to the Inaugural totaled $8,400.

RED MONEY FOR THE DNC..Robertson letters to Brown & Clinton "… Careful inspection of Robertson's donations revealed he coughed up almost a million dollars to the DNC prior to RSA/SDI. In fact, VP Al Gore called Robertson for a donation from a White House phone in November of 1995. Robertson made the requested $100,000 donation to the Clinton/Gore campaign in late January, writing a check just days before the RSA/China public announcement…."

Gore's China scandal", 9/15/98, World Net Daily, Charles Smith * In an April 1994 letter Robertson reminded Brown of scheduled money-raising events for the DNC and of his efforts for DNC candidates. "P.S." Robertson wrote to Brown. "It has been fund raising season out here for the Senate and we've had events at our home for Feinstein, Lieberman, and Cooper. I wish you were still head of the DNC for the December elections, but you are obviously doing a great job at Commerce."

Gore's China scandal", 9/15/98, World Net Daily, Charles Smith In the same letter Robertson also noted his influence in the Chinese communist party. In April 1994 Robertson informed Brown of his successful effort to hire the son of a major Chinese Communist leader. "We have recently hired Bo Feng the son of Feng Zhijun the vice chairman of the China Democratic League and a member of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress."

Gore's China scandal", 9/15/98, World Net Daily, Charles Smith "Bo" Cutter, "Bob" Rubin, Al Gore and Ron Brown were all tasked to encryption export policy in the 1993 Top Secret order from Bill Clinton written by Tony Lake. Bo, Bob, Al and Ron were part of the encryption task force detailed in the 1996 CIA/FBI/DOJ meeting. "Bo" Cutter's boss, now Treasury Secretary "Bob" Rubin, raised the 1994 $100,000 from Sanford Robertson while working inside the White House -- just like Al Gore in 1995. All of these fine gentlemen were also making secret export policy -- including Sanford Robertson.

Gore's China scandal", 9/15/98, World Net Daily, Charles Smith * Both Bernard Schwartz and Sanford Robertson were given the detailed dossiers of the Chinese leadership from President Jiang Zemin, and MOFTEC's Madam Wu Yi -- down to the local communist mayor of Shanghai. The new documents include information on such communist officials as Hu Qili -- Minister of Electronics Industry -- a former radical Red Guard member of the Chinese Youth movement. According to the hidden documents, Qili argues "that military electronics are a key technology necessary for winning modern warfare."

Letter from Sanford Robertson to Bill Clinton 11/1/94 "…..Dear Mr. President, Thank you for autographing the pictures taken in the cabinet room before Ron Brown's delegation to China. The trip seemed to be an economic and diplomatic triumph. One of the highlights was observing Ron Brown in the way he represented the United States. His diplomatic skills were superb, particularly in the meeting with Li Peng. He deftly navigated the human rights issues by obtaining an agreement on further talks, and then moved directly into the economic issues at hand, i.e. helping Chrysler, Sprint and others with their joint ventures …. P.S. - Bob Rubin came to our home on Thursday for a Dianne Feinstein dinner, which raised over $100,000 for her campaign. Bob, of course, turned out the financial community and Silicon Valley. ….."

2/2/96 RSA Data Security, Inc. and People's Republic of China Sign MOU People s Republic of China "In October of last year, James Bidzos, RSA's President and Chief Executive Officer, visited Beijing at the invitation of MOFTEC to provide the keynote address at a MOFTEC-sponsored symposium on electronic commerce. The symposium was widely attended by Chinese government officials, crypto researchers, and members of the business community. The move towards electronic commerce in China and the need to secure the transactions, made obvious at the symposium, brought RSA, LOIS, and MOFTEC into further discussions."

Computerworld 3/29/99 Megan Scott "……Within the next year, Greater China may harbor an RSA Data Security Inc.-branded technology center for local cryptography development. So says Simon Naylor, vice president of Asia-Pacific at U.S.-based Security Dynamics -- the parent firm of wholly-owned subsidiary RSA. Such a move could potentially yield easier access to 128-bit encryption, which U.S. export law currently restricts for national security reasons. Naylor disclosed the possibility in an interview with Computerworld Hong Kong following an announcement of the company's new Hong Kong-based regional North Asia headquarters. Earlier this year, RSA opened a technology center in Australia where the firm is now shipping its first 128-bit cryptography developed outside the U.S. Meanwhile, in China, the company is working on its "relationship building," according to Naylor. RSA has already done some cooperative development work on elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) at the Beijing University with the Laboratory of Information Security (LOIS), Naylor said. ……..Regardless of that outcome, Security Dynamics is also making plans to further expand its sales force operations and exposure in Greater China. "When we open an office in Beijing in the third quarter, I think we'll start to address the China (encryption) market much more aggressively," Naylor said. …..The main purpose of the recently-opened Hong Kong headquarters will be to serve as a sales center for North Asia for RSA Australia's 128-bit encryption product -- BSAFE SSL-C. The 128-bit Secure Sockets Layer (SSL)-based product offers software developers v2 and v3-level SSL protocol, as well as Transport Layer Security (TLS) v1.0 protocol, officials said……."

Computerworld 3/29/99 Megan Scott "……Despite the restrictions, the U.S. government is starting to loosen up, Naylor said. The 128-bit encryption is now exportable without approval for overseas subsidiaries of U.S. companies; applications in the financial sector as well as the health and medical fields; and, more recently, applications for the e-commerce market, he said……… Earlier this year, a 16 year-old Irish student developed an encryption algorithm that claimed to be faster than RSA's cryptography system. If the Chinese can't buy encryption technology from the U.S., they'll develop it locally or buy it from another country like Ireland or Israel, Naylor noted. …."

Softwar "….SOFTWAR Exclusive Interview With Jim Bidzos James Bidzos is the Chairman of RSA INC. the largest US encryption firm. In 1994, Bidzos met with Commerce Department officials in a US Government attempt to purchase RSA patents on Digital Signatures... ……
SOFTWAR: When did you meet with Vice President Al Gore during the government bid to buy RSA patents on Digital Signatures?
BIDZOS: I did not meet with Al Gore on this; only Ginger Lew and 4 other lawyers, but they did say they were there on his authority. It was in early 1994, in March, I think.
SOFTWAR: Have you ever met with Janet Reno? John Huang? Ginger Lew? Ira Sockowitz? Ron Brown?
BIDZOS: No to all of the above.
SOFTWAR: Do you think the Clinton administration shipped Clipper systems to China? Do you think this export was an accident or intentional?
BIDZOS: I know nothing about this, and have not heard of it until now….."

Softwar "….One example of Reno's conflict is the Clinton China Crypto Scam. It was Reno's Justice Anti-Trust Division that authorized the merger of a major company backed by a big donor to the DNC. The companies, RSA and Security Dynamics, sought the merger in 1996 just after RSA Chairman James Bidzos signed a memo of understanding to perform "encryption research" with China. The donor, Sanford Robertson, paid $100,000 to the DNC just prior to the merger. Furthermore, Mr. Robertson was on the list of those called by Al Gore from the White House and the MONEY arrived just after Gore's call. In fact, $20,000 of Robertson's donation was split into a HARD money account by the DNC. Of course, Mr. Robertson's investment firm made a cool two million dollars on the merger deal, spurred in part by the lucrative RSA contract with the PRC…….. Yet, Ms. Reno was also directed officially by President Clinton to oversee the "encryption problem" and enforce policy. For example, according to recently declassified documents from the Clinton National Security Council, Ms. Reno was tasked by President Clinton in 1993 to oversee the Clipper project. ……… Other than approving the lucrative RSA merger/export, Ms Reno and the Justice Department are also major players in export policy. They are part of an Inter-Agency Working group specifically tasked to cover crypto and exports. As proof, Reno's Justice Department has written most of the Clinton encryption policy papers. In fact, some of the secret documents written by Reno's Justice Department on crypto policy were compromised by former DNC fund-raiser Ira Sockowitz. Sockowitz walked out of the Commerce Department with over 2,000 pages of secrets in 1996. Ironically, included in the Sockowitz papers are secret documents covering the 1996 RSA/China deal……Curiously, Ms. Reno has chosen NOT to look into the matter……"

2/29/00 Xinhua Internet security issues trigger discussions in China "……Beijing, 29th February: Hack attacks on major web sites in the United States and China this month have set off spirited discussions among China's information-watchers……. On or near February 8, when major web sites such as Yahoo and Amazon in the US were temporarily shut down by hackers, China's also faced a similar assault…..But the vulnerability of the Internet has also created a large market for security products. A new network software security system was developed recently at Xian Communication University. The system, entirely the brainchild of Chinese computer experts, has been approved by the ministry of public security. …..Foreign Internet security companies are also coming to the country. RSA Security Inc, a major international security software and consulting company, set up its first Chinese office in Beijing on Monday. Its security product, RSA SecurityID/ACE, has also been approved for sale in China………Tom Schuster, RSA's vice-chairman in charge of global marketing, said that China is a very interesting and very important market for Internet security, as the country is developing so swiftly. ….."

4/3/1995 U.S. News & World Report All rights reserved. "…….This week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a cyberspace civil liberties organization, will give Zimmermann a prestigious Pioneer Award, for helping protect citizens' privacy by creating a powerful encryption program called ``Pretty Good Privacy'' (PGP) and making it available for free. It has been a boon to those seeking to protect their E-mail and commercial transactions and, in some notable cases abroad, shielding communications by human-rights groups and dissidents in repressive countries……… But law enforcement and intelligence officials have a different view of Zimmermann's achievement. He is being investigated for possible violation of federal arms-export laws because his ``cryptography for the masses'' has slipped out of America. ``The ability of just about everybody to encrypt their messages is rapidly outrunning our ability to decode them,'' worries a U.S. intelligence official. ``It's a lot harder to eavesdrop on a worldwide web than it is to tap a cable.'' Echoes James Kallstrom, assistant director in charge of the FBI's New York office: ``We need balanced public policy because it has unbelievableramifications for business and law enforcement.''……"

Protecting Your Privacy, by Karl L. Barrus Freeper Jolly 3/11/00 "….PGP has a controversial past. Public key cryptography is patented. The patents are held by RSA Data Security Inc. (RSADSI), and Zimmerman did not obtain permission to use them. RSADSI feels all versions of PGP prior to 2.3 infringe on the patents. A company named ViaCrypt negotiated a license and sells a version of PGP for commercial use. An MIT group obtained a license from RSADSI, and so all versions of PGP after 2.5 are legal. However, the U.S. government classifies cryptographic devices as munitions, making such devices export controlled......."

WorldNetDaily 6/28/99 Charles Smith "...The FBI has come under fire recently for providing poor counter-intelligence to the Department of Energy, concerning PLA espionage involving nuclear weapons. Yet, counter to prevailing opinions, as the report shows, the FBI counter-intelligence team was busy warning the Clinton administration about COSTIND and the PLA back in 1995....Much of the equipment included U.S. manufacturing equipment and U.S. training; thus, not only was the technology exported, but so were the American jobs. Some of the documented transfers include: .......RSA/Security Dynamics computer security encryption technology to the Laboratory of Information Security, a PLA information warfare lab, under the control of China's Ministry of Trade and Economic Co-operation (MOFTEC) and COSTIND..."


Alamo-Girl: We need to have a better concept of the relationship between Judge Morrow and Arnold & Porter. For instance, Clinton referred to her relationship to the prior lawfirm as "shareholder" but I believe she is referred to as a "partner" in Arnold & Porter. I don't know if any of those relationships continue today.


Arnold & Porter – Two Jack Quinn’s

Jack Quinn, the Whitehouse Counsel:

Freeper Bonaparte on Jack Quinn, the Whitehouse counsel:

Arnold & Porter
Thurman Arnold Building
555 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, District Of Columbia 20004-1202
(D.C. County)
ADMITTED: 1975, District of Columbia
LAW-SCHOOL: Georgetown University Law Center (J.D., 1975 )
COLLEGE: Georgetown University (A.B., 1971)
TEXT: Georgetown Law Journal. Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, 1990-1992. Professional Staff Member, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, 1969-1973. Chief Legislative Assistant, Senator Floyd Haskell, 1975. Special Counsel, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, 1976. Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the U.S., 1993-1995. Counsel to the President of the U.S., 1995-1997.

BORN: August 16, 1949

Jack Quinn sits on the board of Fannie Mae. Arnold & Porter represents it.

"...MARGARET WARNER: FBI Director Louis Freeh ordered strict new controls over the Bureau's background files today. After an internal FBI probe also released today sharply criticized the manner in which the Clinton White House obtained more than 400 such files from the FBI. The internal inquiry by the FBI's general counsel found that the White House's request between December of 1993 and February of 1994 were without justification and amounted to "egregious violations of privacy." In a written statement, FBI Director Freeh said, "The prior system of providing files to the White House relied on good faith and honor. Unfortunately, the FBI and I were victimized. I promise the American people it will not happen again on my watch." Under the new FBI safeguards, any background file request must include actual signatures of the White House official requesting the file and a White House attorney approving it--earlier requests carried only the typed name of the White House counsel--a detailed reason for the request; written consent from the individual concern and review and approval by high level FBI officials. Separately today, White House counsel Jack Quinn announced new administration procedures for making such requests. The new White House rules essentially echo the new FBI requirements...." 10/26/99 Stephan Archer

".... In a lawsuit related to Filegate, a former special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation is pressing his case that a White House "smear campaign" destroyed his credibility and forced him into early retirement. Dennis Sculimbrene retired from the FBI on Aug. 2, 1996, following an alleged smear campaign, in which former White House Counsel Jack Quinn, former Special Counsel Lanny Davis and former FBI General Counsel Howard Shapiro allegedly conspired to discredit Sculimbrene's undercover work concerning David Craig Livingstone, the director of the White House Office of Personnel Security and key figure in the Filegate scandal. Sculimbrene particularly implicates first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton....... After two FBI agents sent by Shapiro were unable to persuade Sculimbrene to retract the memorandum, [linking Hillary Clinton to Filegate] the alleged smear campaign began...... As part of the smear campaign against Sculimbrene, Quinn allegedly sent a bogus letter to FBI Director Louis J. Freeh in July 1996, accusing Sculimbrene of falsifying the Livingstone memorandum. Another co-conspirator in alleged defamation was Lanny Davis, a surrogate and spokesman for the Clinton White House. Appearing on CNN's "Crossfire" in July 1996, and again on CNBC's "Rivera Live" the following August, Davis accused Sculimbrene of falsifying his then-three-year-old memorandum of Livingstone's ties with the first lady. Four months after appearing on "Rivera Live," Davis was formally hired by the Clinton White House as special counsel and joined Quinn in the White House Counsel's Office......"

WorldNetDaily 10/7/98 Sarah Foster

"In an unprecedented effort to control the direction of questioning and flow of testimony during Travelgate hearings, White House counsel went so far as to prepare special scripts for Democrats on a congressional investigative committee -- enabling members to ask friendly witnesses approved questions and to fend off potentially embarrassing ones, WorldNetDaily has learned. "Extensively detailed briefing papers and a series of questions ... were prepared to script the Democrat members of the [House] Committee on Government Reform and Oversight" -- the Oversight Committee said in its 186-page report: Investigation of the White House Travel Office Firings and Related Matters. "Such meticulous executive branch scripting for congressional hearings is something even the Nixon White House did not dare to undertake," the committee observed. Although the report was released in September, 1996, the scripting of committee members was something the public and the media overlooked -- the matter being eclipsed by the report's revelations about the notorious "Sherburne Memo." …."This is a huge issue," Morton told WorldNetDaily. "The public and the press are talking about Bill and Monica -- but here's Clinton and his cronies taking over Congress -- intervening in its affairs and investigative work." The Sherburne Memo and the scripts were part of a cache of some 2,000 pages of subpoenaed documents which the White House had refused to release to the committee, claiming the usual "executive privilege." Not until August 15, 1996, did President Clinton finally agree to relinquish them -- and then only after the committee threatened White House Counsel John M. Quinn with criminal contempt of Congress…."

From Arnold & Porter website:

Jack Quinn is a partner in the law firm of Arnold & Porter, resident in its Washington, D.C., office. Mr. Quinn directs the Public Policy Practice Group, which provides clients with strategic planning advice and government affairs counseling, incorporating the firm's expertise in a wide range of practice areas, including communications, the environment, international transactions, trade regulation, and legislation. Mr. Quinn served as Counsel to the President of the United States from November 1995 to February 1997. At the time of his appointment by President Clinton, Mr. Quinn was Vice President Gore's Chief of Staff and Counselor, a position he undertook in May of 1993. Between January of 1993 and May of that year, Mr. Quinn was the Vice President's Counsel and Deputy Chief of Staff. Prior to his government service, Mr. Quinn spent 17 years at Arnold & Porter. He was elected partner in 1982. Between January 1990 and January 1993, Mr. Quinn also was an Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, where he taught a seminar in constitutional law.Mr. Quinn also serves on the Boards of Directors of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Neuralab, Ltd., the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, TF Software, and the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial. Mr. Quinn is a 1971 graduate of Georgetown University College of Arts and Sciences and is a 1975 graduate of Georgetown University Law Center, where he was an editor of the Georgetown Law Journal. While in college and law school, Mr. Quinn served on the staff of the United States Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs (1969-73), the Democratic National Committee (1973), and Senator Floyd Haskell (D-CO, 1974-75). In 1975-76, at the age of 26, Mr. Quinn served as Campaign Director of the Udall for President campaign. Mr. Quinn is admitted to the District of Columbia Bar.


The Associated Press 11/17/99

President Clinton's former White House counsel and the former Republican National Committee communications director formed a bipartisan lobbying firm. The new firm is known as Quinn, Gillespie and Associates, named for former White House Counsel Jack Quinn and former GOP spokesman Edward Gillespie, who earlier had served as communications director for House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas……Quinn has been a partner in the lawyer-lobbying firm of Arnold and Porter, representing such clients as Bell Atlantic and MetLife. Gillespie has been president of Policy Impact Communications, where his clients included the American Hospital Association and the Recording Industry Association of America….The two men worked together on a successful lobbying campaign to relax U.S. export restrictions against encryption products, which encode data and transmissions…."

Freeper amom 11/21/99 From the Legal site. Quinn Exits Arnold & Porter To Start Lobby, PR Firm (photo) Former Clinton Counsel Teams Up With GOP Public Relations Specialist Ed Gillespie By Sam Loewenberg Web Published Wednesday, November 17, 1999

Lobbyist Jack Quinn, the former counsel to President Bill Clinton who is now a partner at D.C.'s Arnold & Porter, is joining with Republican spinmeister Ed Gillespie to form Quinn, Gillespie & Associates, a new lobby and PR shop that will try to press its contacts on both sides of the aisle. A member of Vice President Al Gore's inner circle, Quinn heads the public policy practice at Arnold & Porter…

"It was time for me to go down a different path, to focus more directly on a pure consulting business to get into a situation in which I could be more entrepreneurial."

Specifically, says Quinn, he wanted the option of taking equity in some of his clients in the high-tech, telecom, and real estate industries. His clients include the Intel Corp., DaimlerChrysler, SBC Communications Inc., the Bell Atlantic Corp., the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., and Cisco Systems Inc. Quinn declines to discuss which clients would follow him to the new firm - and adds that some might come with him for lobbying work but stay with Arnold & Porter for legal counsel.

Quinn and Gillespie first met as sparring partners on a television political chat show, and then found themselves working side by side for a computer industry coalition on encryption reform. Quinn started Arnold & Porter's public policy group in 1997 after leaving his job in the White House. Before that, he was chief of staff to Vice President Gore.

Quinn says he has invited the half-dozen members of the public policy group to join him….

Gillespie started Policy Impact in 1997 with former RNC Chairman Haley Barbour,… Policy Impact's five other public relations professionals will stay at the firm, except for one person who will go to work on the George W. Bush campaign, adds Gillespie.

The new firm …officially launches in January.

Freeper amom 11/25/99 "….At the Center for Responsive Politics site there is data regarding Jack Quinn as a lobbist for A&P and the companies he lobbied for including: Allegiance Corp, Bell Atlantic, Assn for Manufacturing Technology, Coalition for Encryption Reform, Intel Corp, SBC Communications…."

The above link shows lobbying income at $4,660,000 for Arnold & Porter in 1998. Coalition for Encryption Reform spent $420,000 in 1998.

Jack Quinn, the long standing associate of Judge Morrow from California:

From Arnold & Porter website:

Los Angeles Office

Area of Expertise: General Litigation


J.D., 1959, University of Southern California Law Center

B.A., 1954, University of Southern California

Mr. Quinn specializes in complex litigation. He also represents clients in negotiations, arbitrations and mediations.He was the president of the Los Angeles County Bar Association in 1977, and, in 1992, was the recipient of its highest honor, The Shattuck-Price Award. In 1994, he was the recipient of the Learned Hand Award given by the American Jewish Committee for outstanding contributions to the legal profession. In 1995, he was the recipient of the Distinguished Service Award given by the United States Courts of the Ninth Circuit.Mr. Quinn has been a member of the American College of Trial Lawyers since 1977 and is also a member of the American board of Trial Advocates, The Association of Business Trial Lawyers and the California Trial Lawyers Association.He is presently the chairperson of the Standing Committee on Discipline for the Central District of California, United States District Court, and is the former chairperson of Senator Barbara Boxer's Federal Judicial Selection Committee. Mr. Quinn is admitted to the California Bar and is admitted to practice in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Arnold & Porter, Second Degree of Separation:

Arnold & Porter represents Motorola, which created Iridium in 1987. Global Gateway Management is an Iridium division.

Lauri Fitz-Pegado, a long-time friend of Brown and special adviser to the chairman of the DNC, became vice president of Global Gateway Management. Her responsibilities at Iridium include coordinating meetings and trips with international investors. She was joined there by her former Commerce assistants Pilar Martinez, Charlotte Kea, Andrew Balfour, who was a director under the executive secretary for Commerce.

Lauri Fitz-Pegado, a long-time friend of Brown and special adviser to the chairman of the DNC, became vice president of Global Gateway Management. Her responsibilities at Iridium include coordinating meetings and trips with international investors. She was joined there by her former Commerce assistants Pilar Martinez, Charlotte Kea, Andrew Balfour, who was a director under the executive secretary for Commerce.

Picture of Lauri Fitz-Pegado at this link titled African Telecom Leaders At AFCOM Conferences

Lauri Fitz-Pegado of Global Gateway Management was an Export/Import Bank Advisory Member

Lauri Fitz-Pegado is listed as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (DSL)

Lauri Fitz-Pegado is a member of the CSIS Advisory Panel, Diplomacy in the Information Age "…FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 10, 1998 ….. The 1998 Advisory Committee of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) will meet on Tuesday, April 14 at 9:30 a.m. at Ex-Im Bank headquarters to discuss this year's theme: "Partnering With The Private Sector." The first meeting of the year will focus primarily on Ex-Im Bank's 1997 Advisory Committee's report on "Applicability of World Bank Practices" and specific assignments in relation to the topic. David E. Lamb, managing director of Lamb Grays Harbon Company, Hoquiam, WA will chair the 15-member committee which was appointed by the Ex-Im Bank Board of Directors. The open forum brings together representatives of various export sectors including production, commerce, finance, agriculture, labor, services and state government. Three members represent small business. This is the fifteenth year that the congressionally-mandated committee will assist Ex-Im Bank by providing "real world" viewpoints on a wide range of export issues. The 1998 quarterly meeting schedule is: June 16, September 15, and December 15. The meetings are open to the public….…The 1998 Advisory Committee members are: ….. Lauri J. Fitz-Pegado Vice President, Global Gateway Management Iridium LLC Washington, D.C. Representing Small Business…." A long interview with Lauri Fitz-Pegado, here’s one excerpt: "…Fitz-Pegado: My priorities would lie in the economic and commercial arena because I believe that's the backbone of building stable countries, democratic nations, nations that are able to feed themselves, that are able to have their infrastructures grow, that are able to walk into the 21st Century with new technologies. [Priorities include] things that are related to technology exchange; to infrastructure growth; to building the foundations for countries to have self-determination; to feel free to educate their own so that they are in a position to make choices in a free and open society, free-market economies. Economic, commercial, and education need to be more of the backbone for the type of "diplomacy" we are engaged in. With changes in information technology, more of the traditional use of diplomats in the information-gathering mode will quickly change, and are quickly changing. Human beings are always needed, and a face is always needed, I believe, when we're dealing with human beings around the world. But, the type of use of that face and that time and that individual is shifting and will continue to shift. So, we must change the nature of what diplomats do, how missions are formulated, what funding goes toward human resource or to equipment machinery or technology, how it is utilized, how information is exchanged. Back to what the priority is: transfer of technology, education, commercial engagement, trade, and forming a backbone for economies to be self sustaining which will allow democracy, free thought, free markets, and development to actually flourish. …." USIS Weekly Special Report 6/10/99 Phillip Kurata, USIA Staff Writer "…U.S. diplomacy faces the prospect of becoming irrelevant in the 21st century if U.S. diplomats do not become adept at influencing public opinion, two advisory panels have concluded. In a report called "Reinventing Diplomacy in the Information Age," the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) said that the "public dimension is becoming the central element of the new diplomacy and a critical influence on foreign policy." ….. "Diplomacy in the 21st century must overturn its culture of secrecy and its penchant for exclusivity" to deal effectively with these issues, the influential Washington think tank said. A second report on reforming U.S. diplomacy echoed the CSIS call for greater emphasis on public diplomacy and recommended organizational changes to make embassies more responsive to the Information Age….."

…."With the full integration of USIA [US Information Agency] into the State Department, we hope that we can buy into a little bit more of the public diplomacy culture so that it can be more and more part of the way we operate overseas quite naturally instead of relying on another agency to it for us," Itoh [William Itoh, Executive Secty State Dept Overseas Presence Advisory Panel] said….."

….Lauri Fitz-Pegado, a vice president for Global Gateway Management and a former director general of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service, spoke of ways that embassy personnel could help U.S. businesses abroad. For example, she said embassy press officers could make their daily summaries of the local media available to the U.S. business people.

Barry Zorthian, a retired vice president of Time Inc. and a former senior Foreign Service officer, said he found it scandalous that the Foreign Service Institute has no courses on public diplomacy. He also called for reforming the selection process of U.S. ambassadors to reduce the embarrassments caused by unskilled political appointees….."

Arnold & Porter – Intellectual Property

Freeper Roscoe 11/16/99 from ARNOLD & PORTER - NEWSLETTERS

"….2.5 Bulletin Board and Internet Services may be Contributorily Liable for Copyright Infringement

Plaintiff Religious Technology Center ("RTC") owns copyrights in certain work by the founder of the Church of Scientology. Defendant Erlich is a former minister and critic of the Church. Erlich uses an on-line newsgroup for discussion and criticism of the religious works owned by RTC. Erlich posted copies of RTC's works on the Internet through a bulletin board service ("BBS") operated by defendant Klemesrud. Klemesrud's BBS was connected to the Internet through defendant Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc. ("Netcom"). Once on Netcom's computers, messages are available to Netcom's customers who may then download the messages.

RTC sued Erlich, Klemesrud and Netcom for copyright infringement. With respect to Erlich, the court concluded that Erlich's actions were likely infringing, and preliminarily enjoined Erlich from further use of RTC's works. Both Klemesrud and Netcom moved for judgment in their favor.

The court held that Klemesrud and Netcom could not be considered direct copyright infringers. The court reasoned that Klemesrud and Netcom merely stored and automatically forwarded messages sent by Erlich and others, and did not control the content of the information. According to the court, if Klemesrud and Netcom were direct infringers, anyone in the worldwide link of computers transmitting Erlich's message would similarly infringe.

However, the court held that both Klemesrud and Netcom might be contributorily liable for copyright infringement. According to the court, Klemesrud and Netcom may be contributorily liable for copyright infringement if they knew or should have known that infringing copies were posted by Erlich, but nevertheless refused to investigate or take steps to stop aiding in Erlich's infringement. Thus, the court denied Klemesrud's and Netcom's motions, and held that RTC's claim can proceed to a trial on the issue of contributory infringement. (Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services Inc., Civ. Act. No. C-95-2009 (N.D. Cal. November 21, 1995)).

Practice Tip: Once a BBS operator or Internet service provider is notified of a potential infringement, it should take affirmative steps to avoid aiding in that potential infringement….."

Freeper Roscoe 11/27/99 reports "Quinn, Kully & Morrow have also represented Scientologists CASE NO. CV 91-6426 HLH (Tx) …"

Freeper Roscoe 11/16/99 "They appear to have represented the Scientologists in some actions, but not others. See Fishman's Malicious Prosecution Complaint ."

Sockowitz and Intellectual Property and the Internet

From Freeper Sakida:


BRUCE A. LEHMAN, Chairman, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
MARK BOHANNON, Department of Commerce
IRA SOCKOWITZ, Department of Commerce
DIANE MARKOWITZ, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
KENNETH DINTZER, Department of Justice
MICHAEL HOFFMAN, Department of Energy
JERRY LINN, National Institute of Standards and Technology
MICHAEL S. SHAPIRO, National Endowment for the Humanities
PHYLLIS HARTSOCK, National Telecommunications and Information Administration
HAROLD M. SCHOOLMAN, National Library of Medicine
TERRI SOUTHWICK, Patent and Trademark Office
MICHAEL HOFFMAN-Department of Energy
Several CIA rep. who did not wish to give names

Part of Mr. Lehman's opening statement...

The Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, which I chair, was established as part of the White House Information Infrastructure Task Force. The Task Force, chaired by Secretary of Commerce Ronald Brown, has been created to articulate and implement the Administration's vision for the National Information Infrastructure. The Task Force is working with the private sector, public interest groups, Congress, and state and local governments to develop comprehensive telecommunications and information policies and programs that best meet our country's needs.

As many of you know, we held a public hearing on these issues last November at which 30 people testified, and we received approximately 70 written comments. In July, we issued the Preliminary Draft of the Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, which we dubbed the "Green Paper." It is the Working Group's first cut, and I want to emphasize that -- our first cut at the examination and analysis of the intellectual property implications of the National Information Infrastructure. While this preliminary report addresses each of the major areas of intellectual property law of patents, trademarks, and trade secrets, it focuses primarily on copyright law and its application and effectiveness for the NII.


Jack Valenti, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Motion Picture Association of America.
(May I insert here that Mr. Sockowitz asked the following question after Mr. Valenti spoke.)

MR. SOCKOWITZ: Mr. Valenti, I understand the need -- would you advocate in your belief for the need to protect these works from copying that every piece of machinery contain a device to prohibit the copying, such as serial copy management technique?

John Kelly, Vice President of Consumer Services, Recording for the Blind from Princeton, New Jersey

David Ostfeld, Chairman of the IEEE-US Activities' Government Activities Council and Vice Chairman of the Intellectual Property Committee of the IEEE, that is the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers

Sandra Walker, President of Visual Resources Association. And she is a Visual Resources Specialist in the Department of Art at the University of Tennessee

Mr. Cy Coleman -world famous composer -- and member of the ASCAP Board of Directors
Mr. Sockowitz's next question which is addressed to Mr. Coleman.

MR. SOCKOWITZ: I would like to follow up on Ms. Southwick's point for a second. Perhaps I can just elucidate the point she was trying to make, because I think we have the same question. The question is, if we move more toward electronic commerce and some artists are already putting their works on the Internet, now currently usually free for sampling, but if we move towards electronic commerce and the record companies control the distribution, say through the advent of digital signaturing, then the delivery of the work itself may come electronically. So instead of Ms. Southwick having to go to the store to buy her CD, she can order it and it is transmitted modem to modem or server to remote PC, but it is in strictly binary form during its transmission -- which you don't hear through your PC or your speakers at the time you order it and receive it. How is that a public performance?

Alfred Willis-head of the Arts Library at the University of California, Los Angeles. I am also the editor of Architronic, the Electronic Journal of Architecture, produced and distributed since 1992 by the Kent State University School of Architecture and Environmental Design

Ellen Kirsh, Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary of America Online, Incorporated
Mr. Sockowitz's final question addressed to Ms. Kirsh.M

MR. SOCKOWITZ- Ma'am, when you say you are simply a conduit for these folks when they sign on to AOL, is there some notice during this sign-on period or prior to their use that informs them regarding infringement and the rights that they are not supposed to violate?


MS. KIRSH: We have a terms of service agreement which is our contract with our subscriber. And I would be happy to provide a copy of that. Actually, we are right in the process of revising this now, which clearly prohibits the uploading of any content which they don't have the right to upload. So that clearly instructs them not to put material on the service which infringes the rights of third parties. It deals with much more than copyright violations, but it certainly covers them.

MR. SOCKOWITZ: Is that -- now I belong to several on-line services and in many of them I use script files to access my account. I bypass all of that every time I sign on. So are your folks getting that once when they subscribe to your service or each time they sign on to your service?

MS. KIRSH: They get it once when they sign on, although I mentioned that we were in the process of revising it and we are now discussing internally the mechanics of how we might have some at least notice screen that is a mandatory review of highlights of that. You know, I don't know exactly how that will sort out in terms of our future service offering, but now it is clearly -- it is something which a user must go access. It is not something which immediately comes on the screen every time the user signs on.


Morton David Goldberg, Chair of the Copyright Committee of the Intellectual Property Organization-Schwab, Goldberg, Price and Dannay of New York. I appear for IPO, Intellectual Property Owners, whose copyright committee I chair.

Ivan Bender,the Consortium of College and University Media Centers

Brian Kahin, General Counsel of the Interactive Multimedia Association …."



AP 11/12/99 Laurie Asseo

"…..Interest groups' involvement in the judicial nominating process is a greater threat to judicial independence than criticism of judges' rulings and even threats to impeach them, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said Friday night. The justice also renewed his criticism of the nation's largest lawyer's organization, saying the American Bar Association has undermined its role in the judicial nominating process by taking stands on controversial political issues……. ``The bitterness and enmity surrounding judicial nominations to the federal bench have proven to be one of the principle modern threats to judicial independence,'' the justice said. ``Interest groups have turned the judicial appointment process into merely another theater of operations for their unending battles, if not theater of the absurd.'' ….."

Caribou 11/11/99 Here is what Sen Inhofe had to say about the Judge.

U.S. Senator James M. Inhofe (R - Oklahoma)


Senate Floor Statement
February 10, 1998

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that tomorrow we are going to be voting on the confirmation of Mrs. Margaret Morrow, Judge Margaret Morrow, who has been nominated for the position of U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California. While I will be opposing her nomination, it is not because of her academic qualifications, nor her credentials, but her philosophy that she has expressed in the past from the bench.

Lately a lot of people have said that the state of our judiciary is somewhat deplorable, and I think it is, although I do not think it is because of the lack of judges being confirmed. I do not think that is the problem. I think it is the philosophy, the dangerous philosophy of elitism which pervades the judicial branch of the Federal Government. This elitism is dangerous and undercuts our belief in courts throughout America. Regrettably, Mrs. Morrow is representative of that elitism.

I am most concerned more than anything else with statements she has made about direct democracy. It seems to be her position that we in America are not able to rule for ourselves, not able to make intelligent decisions, but those decisions would have to be made in some protected ivory tower. She condemns direct democracy. She says, `Ballot initiatives,' and this is a quote, `render ephemeral any real hope of intelligent voting of the majority.'

What she is saying here is that the people are not capable of making these decisions. And, of course, they do have problems out there in the ninth circuit, and the position she is seeking to gain would put her in a position to actually promote some of those things that have been taking place there.

Recently, in Bates v. Jones, a three-judge panel--Reinhardt, Sneed, and Fletcher--affirmed a decision by Judge Wilkins to throw out California's ballot initiative, Proposition 140--that's the term limits for State officials--declaring them unconstitutional.

There have been other efforts such as proposition 209. Last year Judge Henderson struck down the voter-approved referendum ending State affirmative action programs, and fortunately for the 20 million California voters Henderson's original ruling has been struck down, restoring their faith in the voting process.

Proposition 187. Judge Richard Pfaelzer declared a State law denying benefits to illegal aliens unconstitutional because it conflicted with the 1996 welfare reform law. That was overturned.

Proposition 208. Judge Carlton has recently blocked enforcement of the popular initiative that has imposed limits on campaign contributions at the State level.

During her confirmation, Mrs. Morrow claimed never to have publicly opposed a ballot initiative in the past decade with one exception and that was proposition 209. In fact, in 1988, Morrow wrote an article urging lawyers to support or oppose various ballot initiatives. She denounces three others later that year and spoke publicly against two others. So I think it is fairly evident that Margaret Morrow, in addition to these problems, has a problem with the truth. And I certainly think if there is anything we do not need in our judiciary it is someone of that philosophy.

I like the way Senator Ashcroft said it the other day. He said, `Morrow's writings make it clear that she believes people cannot be trusted with the fundamental powers of self-government.'

"….. President Clinton has also re-nominated Margaret Morrow to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In a 1995 article, she expressed an aggressively activist approach to the law: "For the law is, almost by definition, on the cutting edge of social thought. It is the vehicle through which we ease the transition from the rules which have always been to the rules which are to be."

In a 1983 article, Morrow opposed any restrictions on the aggressively political agenda of the Legal Services Corporation. She wrote that "we lawyers...will undoubtedly be called upon to battle once again for a cause at the very center of the political, philosophical and social fabric of America." Just as activist judges have increasingly blocked citizen initiatives after their adoption, and activist nominees such as Margaret McKeown have tried to use the courts to declare democracy itself unconstitutional, Morrow argued in a 1988 article for limitations on citizen initiatives. She scoffed at her fellow citizens, writing that "any real hope of intelligent voting by a majority" was "ephemeral" at best. In a 1989 article, Morrow adopted the same sort of statistical approach to race discrimination that has led activist judges to impose quotas, grant race preferences, or permit racial firing in the name of so-called "diversity."

Combining her belief that the law is a vehicle for moving society toward new rules with her consistently liberal views on other issues compels the conclusion that she would, if confirmed, be another in a long string of liberal activist Clinton judges. Unfortunately, the Senate Judiciary Committee never asked her about these or other articles outlining her activist credentials when she appeared before them on June 25, 1996. That brief hearing included six nominees but only two of 18 committee members attended.

The gravity of the crisis and the Senate's lack of past scrutiny has led nearly 300 grassroots organizations to state their opposition to judicial activism and urge Senators to sign a pledge to prevent confirmation of activist nominees. The American people deserve a place at the table rather than at the back of the bus in the judicial selection process. On February 12, Senator Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, openly attacked this effort to organize and inform Americans about the loss of their liberty at the hands of judicial activists. He denounced as a "thinly veiled threat" the efforts by coalition leaders to better educate Americans about the dangers of judicial activism. Senator Leahy apparently believes that a better informed and more involved electorate is a bad thing. The only thinly veiled threat is Senator Leahy's attempt to censor and intimidate the American people into silence. The leaders of this coalition, on the other hand, have not made a thinly veiled threat at all, but a completely unveiled promise. If Senators choose to ignore their oath of office and continue approving activist judges, their constituents will know about it.

Judicial activism threatens the very heart of what makes America the best political and social system in the world. If Humpty Dumpty can define it, and Senators have an obligation to oppose it, the people have a right to demand that they do so. ….."

"….In addition, 1997 has brought another significant change in judicial appointments. Encouraged by a conservative interest group called the Judicial Selection Monitoring Project of the Free Congress Foundation, Republicans in the Senate have added a new tactic to the strategies that both parties have deployed for controlling the ideological shape of the federal judiciary. That new tactic is inaction. Instead of confronting nominees and searching out flaws in their public record or personal character, the Judiciary Committee is simply not acting on nominations after they are sent to the Senate. And in some cases, the full Senate has declined to act on nominations that have cleared the Judiciary Committee. The sixty-four court vacancies at the end of the 104th Congress in 1996 grew to eighty-one vacancies at the end of the first session of the 105th in 1997.

An example of this approach has been the case of Margaret Morrow. Morrow, a highly regarded attorney in southern California and former head of the state bar association, was nominated to a federal district court judgeship by President Clinton on May 9, 1996. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination unanimously on June 27, 1996. Then the delaying tactics began, a slow drawing out of the confirmation process as different senators placed holds on the nomination while seeking more information from the nominee, usually in the form of written questions. Among the inquiries was a request that she indicate how she had voted, as a private citizen, on all of the 160 initiatives on the California ballot over the previous decade. The nomination was still pending in November 1997, sixteen months after it first cleared the Judiciary Committee…."

Ashcroft Welcomes Decision Not to Move Forward on Morrow

WASHINGTON --U.S. Senator John Ashcroft (MO) said today that he welcomes the announcement that the U.S. Senate will not be asked to consider the nomination of Margaret Morrow to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in this session of Congress. Consideration of the nomination is to be sought prior to the President's Day recess next February, according to supporters of the controversial nomination.

Ashcroft, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has insisted that the nomination be debated fully and a recorded vote taken. More than 180 grassroots organizations nationwide have announced opposition to the nomination because of Morrow's activist views. Ashcroft said of the decision to abandon the nomination in this session of Congress:

"The Ninth Circuit, where the President would have this nominee serve, churns out the most activist trial and appellate court decisions in the nation. Margaret Morrow promises to be just another activist judge who is ready, willing, and able to set aside the judgment of the people on issues such as term limits, racial preferences, or denial of benefits to illegal aliens. Each day that we prevent the confirmation of judges with such elitist and anti-democratic ideas is a day gained for the rule of law.

"I have insisted that this nomination not be handled as business as usual, with no debate and no recorded vote. I welcome the decision of the nominee's sponsors to give up on seeking confirmation during this session, and look forward to a full debate next year."

Morrow has written: "[T]he fact that [voter] initiatives are presented to a 'legislature' of 20 million people renders ephemeral any real hope of intelligent voting by a majority." (Reforming the Initiative Process," Los Angeles Lawyer, November 1988, page 57.)

CONTACT: Kristin Hansen -- (202) 393-2100
FOR RADIO: Rebecca Biles


WASHINGTON, D.C. -- "Judicial activists not only usurp the power of elected lawmakers but also pose a grave danger to American families. A pattern is emerging where judges no longer work within the confines of the Constitution, but create new laws that further their own social and political agendas," Family Research Council President Gary Bauer said Tuesday. "Congress must put a check on judicial activism by opposing the nominations of Judges Margaret Morrow and Frederica Massiah-Jackson to the U.S. District Court. Bauer made his comments regarding the two nominees who are expected to come up for a vote this week in the Senate.

….."Judge Morrow should be opposed on several accounts," Bauer said. "First of all, she has been an ardent proponent of abortion throughout her public life. In the past, she has drafted and lobbied for legislation relating to abortion-on-demand and would likely use her new post to further that agenda. Second of all, Morrow has shown a flippant disregard for the sovereignty of the people by arguing against ballot initiatives. During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, she hid this belief from the Senate and thwarted the investigation by failing to disclose nearly 40 of her own written documents, several which reflected her bias toward judicial activism. In addition, the fact that Morrow has fought attempts to reform the liberal agenda of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) further suggests that she wants to use the law to, in her own words, 'ease the transition from the rules which have been to the rules which are to be.'

"Congress must not succumb to pressure about nominations by confirming these judicial activists. The American people want an end to judicial elitists legislating from the bench."

Record of Margaret Morrow

(Information taken from the Judicial Selection Monitoring Project, 10/15/97)

* Against the rights of gun owners. Morrow was the 1993-94 President of the State Bar of California. The National Law Journal (10/25/93) reported that the October 1993 state bar convention "had only one big issue, gun control." Even though a 1990 Supreme Court decision prohibited the California bar from using dues for political activity, Morrow "vowed" to push the gun control resolution anyway.

* Judicial Activist. Morrow sees law as an instrument for social change. While our founding fathers studied William Blackstone and learned that law is "fixed, uniform and universal," Morrow believes otherwise. She has written, "For the law is, almost by definition, on the cutting edge of social thought. It is the vehicle through which we ease the transition from the rules which have been to the rules which are to be." (Source: Margaret Morrow, Univ. of West L.A. Law Review, 1995.) Translated, Morrow believes that no matter what the Constitution says, social engineers (legislators, judges, etc.) can use legislation or judicial opinions to change the direction of society. If the Second Amendment stands in their way, they just ignore it. Or better yet, they say it doesn't apply to today.

* Lack of integrity and concealing true intentions. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) has stated that Morrow's "judgment and candor are under a great deal of question." She withheld nearly 40 articles, reports and speeches from the Judiciary Committee, despite repeated requests. Then she refused to answer written questions from Senators after her hearing in March. When she finally complied, she gave what Sen. Grassley labeled "false and misleading information." …"

"….According to conservative activist Thomas Jipping, Margaret Morrow, President Clinton's nominee for U.S. District Judge in California, has three strikes against her. Jipping's three strikes are: 1) she is a member of the California Women Lawyers, which is pro-choice, and in favor of parental leave and fair pay, 2) believes in affirmative action, and 3) wants gun control. Even though Morrow has cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee, a "hold" has been placed on her nomination (meaning the full Senate can't vote on it) by Jipping's buddy, John Ashcroft (R-MO). Ashcroft is now dedicated to derailing Morrow's appointment, and is fronting for a coalition of so-called "grass roots" organizations, including the Traditional Values Coalition and the National Rifle Association. Tell Ashcroft (202-224-6154; fax 202-228-0998; E-mail) to stop holding this nomination hostage, and urge your Senator (202-225-3121 or send e-mail). to vote out loud (Ashcroft is insisting on a roll call) for this woman who earned the highest possible evaluation from the American Bar Association evaluation committee…."

Archive-Name: gov/us/fed/congress/record/1998/feb/09/1998CRS511A [Congressional Record: February 9, 1998 (Senate)] [Page S511-S512] From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [] [DOCID:cr09fe98-35]


Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we will soon debate the confirmation of Margaret Morrow to be a United States District Judge. Her qualifications are exemplary; her commitment to public service is impressive; and her supporters are many.

Despite the high regard of a broad and bipartisan group of attorneys and judges, Ms. Morrow has had to wait over 19 months for a vote of the full Senate. But this long delay is finally coming to an end. I am very pleased Senator Lott has promised that, before the February recess, this fine nominee will get her day on the Senate floor.

The Alliance for Justice, which represents a whole host of organizations interested in a strong judiciary, sent a letter to me yesterday outlining their many reasons for supporting the nomination of Margaret Morrow as well as their concern about the time it has taken for the Senate to act. As a supplement to the voluminous information already on the record in support of this nomination, I submit the Alliance for Justice's letter for my colleagues' review. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

February 4, 1998.
Senator Tom Daschle,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Daschle: We write to express our concern over a series of developments that continue to unfold in the Senate that are undermining the judicial confirmation process. These include calls for the impeachment of judges, a slowdown in the pace of confirmations, unjustified criticisms of certain nominees, and efforts to leave appellate vacancies unfilled. Some court observers have opined that collectively these are the most serious efforts to curtail judicial independence since President Roosevelt's plan to pack the Supreme Court in 1937. In the past year nominees who failed to meet certain ultraconservative litmus tests have been labeled ``judicial activists.'' While these charges are unfounded, they nonetheless delay confirmations and leave judicial seats unfilled. We note that of the 14 individuals whose nominations have been pending the longest, 12 are women or minorities. This disturbing pattern is in striking contrast to those 14 judges who were confirmed in 1997 in the shortest period of time, 11 of whom are white men. For example, Margaret Morrow, a judicial nominee to the United States

District Court for the Central District of California, was nominated more than a year and a half ago. Not only is she an outstanding candidate, but her credentials have earned her enthusiastic and bipartisan endorsements from leaders of the bar, judges, politicians, and civic groups.

An honors graduate from Harvard Law School, a civil litigator for more than 20 years, winner of numerous legal awards, and the first female president of the California Bar Association, Morrow has the breadth of background and experience to make her an excellent judge, and in the words of one of her sponsors, she would be ``an exceptionally distinguished addition to the federal bench.'' Morrow has also shown, through her numerous pro bono activities, a
demonstrated commitment to equal justice. As president of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, she created the Pro Bono Council, the first of its kind in California. During her year as bar president, the Council coordinated the provision of 150,000 hours of previously untapped representation to indigent clients throughout the country. Not surprisingly, the American Bar Association's judicial evaluation committee gave her its highest rating.

Republicans and Democrats alike speak highly of her accomplishments and qualifications. Robert Bonner, a Reagan- appointed U.S. Attorney and U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California and head of the Drug Enforcement Administration during the Bush Administration, has said Morrow is a ``brilliant person with a first-rate legal mind who was nominated upon merit, not political affiliation.'' Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block wrote that, ``Margaret Morrow is an extremely hard working individual of impeccable character and integrity. . . . I have no doubt that she would be a distinguished addition to the Court.'' Other supporters include local bar leaders; officials from both parties, including Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan; California judges appointed by the state's last three governors; and three Republican-appointed Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges, Pamela Rymer, Cynthia Holcomb Hall, and Stephen Trott.

Despite her outstanding record, Morrow has become the target of a coordinated effort by ultraconservative groups that seek to politicize the judiciary. They have subjected her to a campaign of misrepresentations, distortions and attacks on her record, branding her a ``judicial activist.'' According to her opponents, she deserves to be targeted because ``she is a member of California Women Lawyers,'' an absurd charge given that this bipartisan organization is among the most highly respected in the state. Another ``strike'' against her is her concern, expressed in a sentence from a 1988 article, about special interest domination of the ballot initiative process in California. Her opponents view the statement as disdainful of voter initiatives such as California's term limits law; however, they overlook the fact that the article outlines a series of recommended reforms to preserve the process.

It is a stretch to construe suggested reforms as evidence of ``judicial activism,'' but to search for this members of the Judiciary Committee unprecedentedly asked her to disclose her personal positions on all 160 past ballot propositions in California.

Morrow's confirmation has been delayed by the Senate beyond any reasonable bounds. Originally selected over nineteen months ago in May 1996, her nomination was unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee that year, only to languish on the Senate floor. Morrow was again nominated at the beginning of 1997, subjected to an unusual second hearing, and recommended again by the Judiciary Committee, after which several Senators placed secret holds on her nomination, preventing a final vote on her confirmation. These holds, which prevented a final vote on her confirmation during the 1st Session of the 105th Congress, were recently lifted.As Senator Orrin Hatch repeatedly said: ``playing politics with judges is unfair, and I'm sick of it.'' We agree with his sentiment. Given Margaret Morrow's impressive
qualifications, we urge you to bring the nomination to the Senate floor, ensure that it receives prompt, full and fair consideration, and that a final vote on her nomination is scheduled as soon as possible.


Alliance for Justice: Nan Aron, President; American Jewish Congress: Phil Baum, Executive Director; Americans for Democratic Action: Amy Isaacs, National Director; Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law: Robert Bernstein, Executive Law; Brennan Center for Justice: E. Joshua Rosenkrantz, Executive Director; Black Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles: Eulanda Matthews, President; California Women Lawyers: Grace E. Emery, President; Center for Law and Social Policy: Alan W. Hausman, Director; Chicago Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: Clyde E. Murphy, Executive Director; Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund: Patricia Wright, Coordinator Disabled Fund; Families USA: Judy Waxman, Director of Government Affairs; Lawyers Club of San Diego: Kathleen Juniper, Director; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights: Wade Henderson, Executive Director.

Press Release 10/29/97 "…For Immediate Release ---October 29, 1997 Contact: John Cox or Ben Dupuy --- (202) 224-4124 Senator Jeff Sessions Opposes Margaret Morrow's Nomination To Be U.S. District Judge

Senator Sessions Opposes Judicial Activism

(Washington, DC) Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Senator John Ashcroft (R-MO) announced today that they will oppose Margaret Morrow's nomination for a federal judgeship because of her demonstrated support for judicial activism. Morrow, a California trial lawyer, was nominated by President Clinton to sit on the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The two senators, along with representatives from some of the more than 100 grass roots groups opposed to Morrow's nomination, held a press conference this morning outside of the Senate to display the broad-based opposition to her nomination.

"I am firmly opposed to Margaret Morrow's nomination for one reason, and one reason only - she is a judicial activist," said Sessions. "She appears to believe that laws should be made by appointed judges, rather than by elected state legislatures and Congress, and that flies in the face of what the Founding Fathers intended. As senators, we are charged with the duty to advise and consent on the president's nominees. In my opinion, as a federal judge, Margaret Morrow will not respect a judge's constitutional responsibility to interpret the law."

Senators Sessions and Ashcroft, along with Charles Grassley (R-IA), Strom Thurmond (R-SC), and John Kyl (R-AZ), voted against Morrow's nomination when the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-5 on June 12 to send her nomination to the full Senate.

2/11/98 Here Come the Judges Melissa Charbonneau, Reporter Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas

"….Some of the same politicians who grilled Clarence Thomas and badgered Robert Bork during their Senate confirmation hearings are now accusing Republicans of torpedoing President Clinton's judicial nominations….. Senator John Ashcroft is leading the fight against California judge Margaret Morrow. Conservatives charge that Morrow favors limits on voter initiatives and question her ties to groups that support racial preferences and abortion rights legislation. Considering the vast powers federal judges wield, the Senate is justified, according to Acosta, to screen for those who might legislate from the bench. "Once they're put on the bench, they cannot be removed from office short of impeachment."…."

10/29/97 The Washington Times Thomas Jipping "….Margaret Morrow has three strikes against her.

…First of all, she is a member the California Women Lawyers, which has filed legal briefs and lobbied for legislation advocating an agenda including race preferences, abortion rights, parental leave and comparable worth. …..Miss Morrow's writings also show her activist view that the courts can be used for political and social change. In her only law journal article, she wrote that the law is "on the cutting edge of social thought" and "the vehicle" for moving society from one set of rules to another…."

….. Secondly, in the words of Sen. Charles Grassley, Miss Morrow's "judgment and candor are under a great deal of question." She withheld nearly 40 articles, reports, and speeches from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Several of these clearly reflected her activist approach to the law. She initially refused to answer written questions from Judiciary Committee members and, when forced to comply by the committee chairman, she provided what Sen. Grassley called "false and misleading information." …."

…..Thirdly, there is Miss Morrow's disdain for self-government….. Her own articles show that in 1988 she urged fellow lawyers to support or oppose various initiatives and denounced three others she said were "plain and simple, an attack on lawyers and the legal system." …." Clinton Appoints 'Judicial Activist'

"….Ms. Morrow is not only extremely antigun, she's a "judicial activist" who thinks that judges can disregard the law and use the court's rulings to reshape society. If nominated to the federal bench, she could affect the outcome of several gun cases, and ensure that the federal courts hand down even more anti-gun rulings. Morrow was the 1993-94 President of the State Bar of California. The National Law Journal (10/25/93) reported that the October 1993 state bar convention "had only one big issue, gun control." Even though a 1990 Supreme Court decision prohibited the California bar from using dues for political activity, Morrow "vowed" to push the gun control resolution anyway….."

"…… Morrow also sees law as an instrument for social change. While our founding fathers studied William Blackstone and learned that law is "fixed, uniform and universal," Morrow believes otherwise. She has written, "For the law is, almost by definition, on the cuffing edge of social thought. It is the vehicle through which we ease the transition from the rules which have been to the rules which are to be." (Source: Margaret Morrow, Univ. of West L.A. Law Review, 1995.) …." A Legacy of Judical Activitism Courtesy of Concerned Women for America

"….In a 1988 article, Margaret Morrow, a Clinton nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, ridiculed the notion that voting actually makes a difference in our democracy. Morrow wrote, "Any real hope of intelligent voting by a majority" was "ephemeral." In addition, Morrow wrote that she believes the "law is, almost by definition, on the cutting edge of social thought. It is the vehicle through which we ease the transition from the rules which have always been to the rules which are to be." Combine those two thoughts plus many others and it is clear that Morrow has contempt for voters and would rather exercise judicial power to force her liberal agenda on society! …."

2/18/97 Free Congress Foundation & The Washington Times Thomas Jipping

"….Judicial activists believe they can make up the meaning of our laws, re-writing statutes and the Constitution to suit their own ends. On the other hand, judicial activism is complex in its devastating consequences. It emasculates democracy, self-government, and the rule of law. It subverts the very principles of republican government that the Constitution itself guarantees….. Judicial activists, however, do not really believe there is such a thing as the Constitution, but only a constitution that they may fashion at a particular time. This renders judicial activists unqualified to sit on the federal bench and Senators, by virtue of their oath of office, have an obligation to oppose their appointment…….. Combining her belief that the law is a vehicle for moving society toward new rules with her consistently liberal views on other issues compels the conclusion that she would, if confirmed, be another in a long string of liberal activist Clinton judges. Unfortunately, the Senate Judiciary Committee never asked her about these or other articles outlining her activist credentials when she appeared before them on June 25, 1996. That brief hearing included six nominees but only two of 18 committee members attended. ….."

The Century Foundation Starting Over G. Calvin Mackenzie

"...In addition, 1997 has brought another significant change in judicial appointments. Encouraged by a conservative interest group called the Judicial Selection Monitoring Project of the Free Congress Foundation, Republicans in the Senate have added a new tactic to the strategies that both parties have deployed for controlling the ideological shape of the federal judiciary. That new tactic is inaction. Instead of confronting nominees and searching out flaws in their public record or personal character, the Judiciary Committee is simply not acting on nominations after they are sent to the Senate. And in some cases, the full Senate has declined to act on nominations that have cleared the Judiciary Committee. The sixty-four court vacancies at the end of the 104th Congress in 1996 grew to eighty-one vacancies at the end of the first session of the 105th in 1997.

An example of this approach has been the case of Margaret Morrow. Morrow, a highly regarded attorney in southern California and former head of the state bar association, was nominated to a federal district court judgeship by President Clinton on May 9, 1996. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination unanimously on June 27, 1996. Then the delaying tactics began, a slow drawing out of the confirmation process as different senators placed holds on the nomination while seeking more information from the nominee, usually in the form of written questions. Among the inquiries was a request that she indicate how she had voted, as a private citizen, on all of the 160 initiatives on the California ballot over the previous decade. The nomination was still pending in November 1997, sixteen months after it first cleared the Judiciary Committee….." Washington Post 10/31/97 Al Kamen

"….Speaking of Clinton judges, looks like the Senate will leave town next week having confirmed about 28 Clinton judges for the year. Twenty-three have been confirmed, and best guesses are perhaps two of the four pending on the floor will be approved soon and two or three of the 13 who had committee hearings this week might also make it.. .Watch for possible floor fireworks over one nominee, Margaret Morrow of California, who's galvanized conservatives who say she's too liberal…."

"…Dear Professional, Apologies for sending out an email during the week. NetIP-NY's Corporate Relations Committee chairperson Lata Goriganti would like to draw your attention to the following item. Time is of the essence in this matter! …… Also enclosed is a model letter thet can be "cut & pasted" and sent to the above-mentioned senators! I have also attached a relevant article from the LA Times that provides some background and explains the sigificance of what we are trying to accomplish by supporting Mr. Sundaram in his attempt to get appointed to the Federal Judiciary, i.e., He would be the FIRST South Asian Federal Judge in the US!!……

….lll MODEL LETTER…. I am writing in support of the nomination of Clarence J. Sundram for the position of United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of New York. As an Indian American professional in the United States, I take great pride in President Clinton's nomination of an outstanding member of our community to this important position……. It is a message in particular to the growing Indian American and Asian American community as he will be the only Federal Judge of Indian ancestry. His confirmation will reinforce our desire to become involved in a vibrant participatory democracy, in all branches of government, and will provide a role model for us and our children as we make our homes in our chosen country……

…. (lV LA TIMES ARTICLE ) Relevant article: FYI! Los Angeles Times February 15, 1998, Sunday, Home Edition SECTION: Opinion; Part M; Page 1; Opinion Desk LENGTH: 1270 words HEADLINE: THE COURTS; THE GOP'S JUDICIAL DELAYS AND THE COST TO MINORITIES BYLINE: Herman Schwartz, Herman Schwartz is a professor of constitutional law at American, University and author of "Packing the Courts: The Conservatives' Campaign, to Rewrite the Constitution." DATELINE: WASHINGTON BODY: The flimsiness of the arguments against Bill Lann Lee to head the Justice Department's civil rights division has led to charges that his opponents are motivated by racism. These charges have been indignantly condemned by the Washington Post, among others, as "reckless, unfounded and disgusting." There may, however, be some real racist fire behind the smoke of these charges. (Alamo-Girl note: complete article inserted) …. Right-wing GOP tactics involving the nomination of Margaret M. Morrow, who was confirmed last week, are also suggestive of racial bias. Morrow, a white female, was held up for more than two years before the GOP allowed a floor vote. They claimed she was a potential "judicial activist." When the vote came, she sailed through easily, 68-27. The Republicans realized they had no case against her and instead decided to train their fire on Frederica Massiah-Jackson, a Philadelphia judge, for "excessive leniency." Massiah-Jackson is African American. Coincidence?…..GRAPHIC: GRAPHIC-DRAWING: (No caption), VINCENT KIRSCH / for The Times LANGUAGE: English LOAD-DATE: February 15, 1998 ….."

11/7/97 Free Congress Foundation & The Washington Times Thomas Jipping

"….Even so, the Clinton apologists among left-wing interest groups and their media and Senate allies won't address the issue for all the money in China but try to change the subject at every turn. For example, based on a public record showing an activist approach to the law, grassroots opposition to the nomination of Margaret Morrow is growing rapidly. Senator Patrick Leahy, however, can only mindlessly repeat the mantra that the nominee's opponents - including Concerned Women for America, the Independent Women's Forum, and Women for Responsible Legislation - are just anti-woman. ….."

Freeper Roscoe reports 11/18/99

"…Committee on the Judiciary: Committee concluded hearings on the nominations of Donald M. Middlebrooks, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, Jeffrey T. Miller, of California, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, Margaret M. Morrow, to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California, and Robert W. Pratt, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, after the nominees testified and answered questions in their own behalf. Mr. Middlebrooks was introduced by Senators Mack and Graham, Mr. Miller was introduced by Senator Feinstein, Ms. Morrow was introduced by Senator Boxer and Representative Rogan, and Mr. Pratt was introduced by Senators Grassley and Harkin…." d18mr7

Congressional Record: February 11, 1998 (Senate) Page S640-S660 Portion of a statement by Barbara Boxer:

"….This is a woman who graduated magna cum laude from Bryn Mawr College and received her law degree from Harvard, graduating cum laude, 23 years in private practice in business and commercial litigation, a partner at the prestigious law firm of Arnold and Porter. She is married to Judge Paul Boland of the Los Angeles Superior Court and has a 10-year-old son ……"


Yellow Rose of Texas 11/16/99 Times Mirror Executives

Mark H. Willes Chairman, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer

Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas 11/17/99 reports "…Mr. Willes joined Times Mirror as CEO in June 1995. In addition, he served as publisher of the Los Angeles Times from October 1997 to June 1999…. He was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 1977 to 1980 and first vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia from 1971 to 1977, having joined the Federal Reserve System in 1969…… ….."

Horst A. Bergmann Executive Vice President, and Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Jeppesen Sanderson, and AchieveGlobal

Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas 11/17/99 reports "…Horst A. Bergmann is executive vice president of Times Mirror, and chairman, president and chief executive officer of Jeppesen Sanderson and AchieveGlobal……He is a board member of the The Times Mirror Foundation, the Jeppesen Aviation Foundation, the German American Chamber of Commerce, the Chief Executives Organization, Colorado UpLift, and the World Trade Center of Denver. He also serves on the Denver Mayor’s Business Council….."

Kathryn M. Downing Executive Vice President, and Publisher, President and Chief Executive Officer, Los Angeles Times

Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas 11/17/99 reports "…Kathryn M. Downing is publisher, president and chief executive officer of the Los Angeles Times and executive vice president of Times Mirror. Ms. Downing was named president and chief executive officer of the Los Angeles Times in March 1998, and publisher in 1999. Prior to joining The Times, she served as president and chief executive officer of Mosby and Matthew Bender, which were divested in 1998. She was appointed vice president of Times Mirror in 1996, senior vice president in 1997, and executive vice president in 1998. She joined Times Mirror in 1995 as president and chief executive officer of Matthew Bender. Prior to joining the company, Ms. Downing was president and chief executive officer of Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, a division of Thomson Legal Publishing, from 1993 to 1995. ……She is on the boards of the Newspaper Association of America and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, and a member of the Stanford Law School Board of Visitors and the UCLA Anderson School of Business Board of Visitors. She is also on the boards of the Times Mirror Foundation, the Jim Murray Memorial Foundation, and President of the Los Angeles Times Fund……"

The New York Post 11/5/99 Allyson Lieberman "….A war of words has erupted at the Los Angeles Times, with staff members branding the publisher an "ageist" for her attempts at silencing a very public uproar. The day after the L.A. Times' former publisher, Otis Chandler, slammed the paper's senior managers for its "unbelievable stupid and unprofessional" profit-sharing agreement with the Staples Center, insiders say the current publisher is trying to downplay the saga by badmouthing her predecessor……. One staffer said Downing went even further, calling Chandler "old and bitter" behind closed doors. "That's ageism. And it shows a level of disrespect for the founding family of the paper," the employee told The Post…… "

AP 11/5/99 Jeff Wilson "…. A Pulitzer Prize-winning media reporter and a retired editor have been asked to investigate the Los Angeles Times' controversial advertising partnership with the city's new sports arena. The Times announced the investigation on Thursday, the day after its retired publisher, Otis Chandler, blasted the newspaper's top management for what he said were a series of missteps that damaged the newspaper's credibility and put its future in doubt. "……Journalists generally avoid sharing financial interests with the people and organizations they cover in order to preserve their credibility……On Thursday, Editor Michael Parks told Times employees the paper's media reporter, David Shaw, will investigate the controversy….."

AP 11/4/99 Otis Chandler "….Excerpts from the letter by former publisher Otis Chandler to Los Angeles Times staff members: This is a personal message addressed today to the employees of the Los Angeles Times, particularly of the editorial department because they have been so abused and misused…… ... Among the specific concerns I have today are such things as the shrinking of the physical size of the paper, the reduction of Times employees, the outsourcing of departments. …….... One cannot successfully run a great newspaper like the Los Angeles Times with executives in the top two positions, both of whom have no newspaper experience at any level. Successfully running a newspaper is not like any other business…… Some people, both inside and outside the Times, do not necessarily consider recent events with the same gravity that I do. These people point to a stable level of earnings, and spectacular growth of the value of Times Mirror shares since Mark Willes came aboard……. ... Respect and credibility for a newspaper is irreplaceable. Sometimes it can never be restored, no matter what steps might be taken after such an event in terms of apology by the publisher and the editor. ….."

Sacramento Bee 11/3/99 Peter King "…..Staff members may not enter into business, or financial relationships with their news sources. -- from a 1997 memorandum on ethics distributed to reporters of the Los Angeles Times ….. Through a series of revelations that began in an alternative weekly, progressed to the pages of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, and finally moved to the L.A. Times itself, it was disclosed that advertising revenues from the Oct. 10 Sunday magazine had been shared with its subject, Staples Arena, part of a quiet deal to pay for the newspaper's standing as an arena sponsor…… The disclosures rocked the Times newsroom. At an emotionally charged staff meeting, publisher Kathryn M. Downing, who came to the post in June with a minimal background in newspapers, took responsibility for what she termed a "major, major mistake." She said it was rooted in her "fundamental misunderstanding" of journalistic principles. Editor Michael Parks, a Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign correspondent, said he had not known about the arrangement until after the magazine was printed, but before it was distributed…..Now, many fine-sounding euphemisms have been draped around the new newspapering attitude, grand talk of "civic journalism," of creating newspapers that are "reader-friendly," that "partner with the community." In fact, the new idea is an old one: Boosterism. Get behind the big project. Stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Rotarians and the Chamber. Root, root, root for the home team. Make nice. That the Times would devote an entire magazine to the celebration of a glorified gymnasium is, in a way, as much an illustration of this mind set as the deal to split profits itself….."

Freeper Bernard Marx adds "…That isn't a rumor. Scheer, now a top LA Times columnist, was a member of the Red Family, an urban guerilla group that included Tom Hayden (now a California state legislator!!!) that was based on Maoist principles. David Horowitz reports in "Radical Son" that they had loaded shotguns propped in the corners. Scheer planned to write an introduction to North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung's book, planned for American publication. Horowitz reports that Scheer, now wealthy from his work at the Times, revels in hypocrisy. He writes: "Confronting an out of work journalist he had known in Berkeley who had political second thoughts, he mocked her mercilessly: 'Look at you. You support the system, and you're struggling, while I attack it and have a six-figure salary and a yacht, and am surrounded by Hollywood stars.'" ….."

Raymond A. Jansen Executive Vice President, Eastern Newspapers and Publisher, President and Chief Executive Officer, Newsday

Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas 11/17/99 reports "…Raymond A. Jansen is publisher, president and chief executive officer of Newsday, a Times Mirror newspaper, and executive vice president, Eastern Newspapers for Times Mirror……He also has oversight responsibilities for Times Mirror's other Eastern Newspapers – The Baltimore Sun, The Hartford Courant, The Morning Call, The (Stamford) Advocate and Greenwich Time. He was appointed vice president of Times Mirror in 1996, senior vice president in 1998, and executive vice president, Eastern Newspapers in 1999….."

Thomas Unterman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Times Mirror

Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas 11/17/99 reports "…Thomas Unterman is executive vice president and chief financial officer of Times Mirror. He is also the managing member of the Rustic Canyon Group, the general partner of TMCT Ventures, a $500 million private equity investment firm. At Times Mirror he is responsible for the company's finance functions, including accounting, audit, strategic development, tax and investor relations. He also oversees Times Mirror's legal department and Times Mirror Resource Management Company, and his other responsibilities include coordinating the company's information technology efforts and company wide support for new media endeavors. He is also the manager of Eagle Media LLC and Eagle New Media LLC, Times Mirror's investment affiliates……"

Efrem Zimbalist III Executive Vice President, and President and Chief Executive Officer, Times Mirror Magazines

Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas 11/17/99 reports "…Efrem Zimbalist III is executive vice president of Times Mirror, and president and chief executive officer of Times Mirror Magazines. He was named to the Times Mirror Magazines post in 1995, and was appointed executive vice president of Times Mirror in 1999, at which time he added oversight responsibilities for StayWell, the company's health improvement information company. Times Mirror Magazines is one of the world's leading publishers of leisure-oriented, special-interest magazines, read by more than 60 million people each month. Titles include Field & Stream, Outdoor Life, Outdoor Explorer, GOLF MAGAZINE, Senior Golfer, Popular Science, Today's Homeowner, SKI Magazine, SKIING, The Sporting News, Salt Water Sportsman, Yachting Magazine, Snowboard Life, TransWorld SNOWboarding, TransWorld SKATEboarding, TransWorld SURF, Freeze, Warp, Ride BMX and SNAP. The company's online division, Times Mirror Interzines, is a leading producer of Web sites for sports enthusiasts….."

Michael E. Waller Senior Vice President, and Publisher and Chief Executive Officer, The Baltimore Sun

Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas 11/17/99 reports "…Michael E. Waller is publisher and chief executive officer of The Baltimore Sun, a Times Mirror newspaper. He has held this position since October 1997. Previously, Mr. Waller served as publisher and chief executive officer of The Hartford Courant from 1994 to 1997. He joined The Courant as executive editor and vice president in 1986, and was named editor in 1990….."

John S. Carroll Vice President, and Editor and Senior Vice President, The Baltimore Sun

Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas 11/17/99 reports "…John S. Carroll is vice president of Times Mirror, and editor and senior vice president of The Baltimore Sun. Mr. Carroll has been editor and senior vice president of The Baltimore Sun since 1991. He began his newspaper career in 1963 with the Providence (R.I.) Journal-Bulletin….."

Janet Clayton Vice President, and Editor of the Editorial Pages and Vice President, Los Angeles Times

Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas 11/17/99 reports "…Janet Clayton is vice president of Times Mirror, and editor of the editorial pages and vice president of the Los Angeles Times. Ms. Clayton has been editor of the editorial pages of the Los Angeles Times since 1995 and Times vice president since 1997…."

Robert G. Magnuson Vice President, and Senior Vice President, Regions, Los Angeles Times

Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas 11/17/99 reports "…Robert G. Magnuson is vice president of Times Mirror, and senior vice president, regional editions of the Los Angeles Times. Mr. Magnuson has been senior vice president, regional editions of the Los Angeles Times since 1997. He joined The Times in 1979 as staff writer in the Business section. After serving as bureau chief in Hong Kong for the Asian Wall Street Journal, from 1982 to 1984, and business editor of the Oakland Tribune in 1984, Mr. Magnuson returned to The Times in 1984 as business editor, Orange County Edition.


Anthony Marro Vice President, and Editor and Executive Vice President, Newsday

Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas 11/17/99 reports "… Anthony Marro is vice president of Times Mirror, and editor and executive vice president of Newsday. Mr. Marro became editor of Newsday in 1987. Prior to this appointment, he was a reporter for the Rutland (Vt.) Herald, Newsday, Newsweek and The New York Times before returning to Newsday in 1979 as Washington bureau chief. He was named managing editor in 1981…."

John C. McKeon Vice President, and Senior Vice President, Advertising Los Angeles Times

Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas 11/17/99 reports "… John C. McKeon is vice president of Times Mirror, and senior vice president of advertising, Los Angeles Times, where he is responsible for all retail, national and classified advertising. He joined The Times in 1998 following a 12-year career with Newsday, another Times Mirror newspaper…."

Nancy W. O'Neill Vice President, and President and Chief Executive Officer, The StayWell Co.

Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas 11/17/99 reports "…Nancy W. O'Neill is vice president of Times Mirror, and president and chief executive officer of The StayWell Co. Ms. O'Neill was named president and chief executive officer of StayWell, Times Mirror’s health improvement unit (formerly Mosby Consumer Health) in 1998. She began her career with Times Mirror in 1994 as director of operations, brand development at Times Mirror Magazines. In 1995, she was promoted to vice president, general manager of Popular Science Properties and in 1996 was named vice president, business innovation…."

Michael Parks Vice President, and Editor and Executive Vice President, Los Angeles Times

Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas 11/17/99 reports "…Michael Parks is editor and senior vice president of the Los Angeles Times. Mr. Parks was named to his position in October 1997, and was appointed vice president of Times Mirror in February 1998. He served as managing editor of The Times from 1996 to 1997, after serving as deputy foreign editor and after 15 distinguished years as a correspondent for the newspaper in China, Russia, Israel and South Africa. He was awarded the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for international reporting for his coverage of South Africa. Mr. Parks joined The Times in 1980 as Beijing bureau chief following a 12-year career with another Times Mirror newspaper, The Baltimore Sun, which included assignments in Beijing, Hong Kong, the Middle East, Moscow and Vietnam….."

Marty Petty Vice President, and Publisher and Chief Executive Officer, The Hartford Courant

Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas 11/17/99 reports "…Marty Petty is publisher and chief executive officer of The Hartford Courant, a Times Mirror newspaper. Ms. Petty, who has held her position since September 1997, has overall responsibility for the business, editorial and news operations at The Courant. Previously, she served as senior vice president and general manager, responsible for advertising, circulation, marketing, new business and electronic marketing, production, commercial sales and information technology. She joined The Courant as managing editor in 1983 and was appointed associate publisher for projects and planning in 1989….."

William J. Rowe Vice President, and Publisher and Chief Executive Officer, The Advocate and Greenwich Time

Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas 11/17/99 reports "…William J. Rowe is vice president of Times Mirror, and publisher and chief executive officer of The Advocate and Greenwich Time. Mr. Rowe became publisher and chief executive officer of The Advocate in Stamford and Greenwich Time in 1986. Prior to joining the newspapers, he was president and chief executive officer of Times Mirror National Marketing. Mr. Rowe began his career in 1958 at the Chicago Tribune on the classified advertising sales staff. In 1965 he was named manager, New York marketing services for The Tribune and served in various positions at the paper including marketing services manager, manager, education services (Newspapers in Education), retail advertising sales manager and, in 1975, was promoted to director of marketing for The Tribune….."

Hilary A. Schneider Vice President, and President and Chief Executive Officer, Times Mirror Interactive

Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas 11/17/99 reports "… Hilary A. Schneider is vice president of Times Mirror, and president and chief executive officer of Times Mirror Interactive, a new unit focused on growing the Internet operations of Times Mirror’s newspaper, magazine and professional information businesses. Ms. Schneider was named vice president, and president and CEO of Times Mirror Interactive in 1999. Previously, she served as general manager of The Baltimore Sun where she was responsible for all of the newspaper’s business operations, including advertising sales, production and circulation, marketing, new business development, and information technology….."

Gary K. Shorts Vice President, and Publisher and Chief Executive Officer, The Morning Call

Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas 11/17/99 reports "…Mr. Gary K. Shorts is vice president of Times Mirror, and publisher and chief executive officer of The Morning Call. Mr. Shorts became publisher and chief executive officer of The Morning Call in 1987. Prior to that he was group president and publisher of Southern California Newspapers in San Diego. From 1975 to 1982, he worked for Capital Cities Communications, serving as marketing director, The Oakland Press, Pontiac, Michigan and circulation director of The News-Democrat, Belleville, Illinois. In 1982 he joined Harte-Hanks Communications as executive vice president and general manager of Times Publishing Company, Wichita Falls, Texas. Later he became vice president, marketing for all Harte-Hanks newspaper operations and was named to the Southern California post in 1985….."

Bonnie Guiton Hill Vice President, and President and Chief Executive Officer, The Times Mirror Foundation, and Senior Vice President, Communications and Public Affairs, Los Angeles Times

Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas 11/17/99 reports "…Bonnie Guiton Hill is vice president of The Times Mirror Company and president and chief executive officer of The Times Mirror Foundation. In 1998 she was appointed senior vice president, community relations, Los Angeles Times, in addition to her ongoing responsibilities at Times Mirror. As president and chief executive officer of The Times Mirror Foundation, Ms. Hill is responsible for promoting the company’s philanthropic initiatives, determining policy and developing The Foundation’s contributions programs. At the Los Angeles Times, she serves in a new position, expanding the role of The Times in the community. She oversees the newspaper’s extensive community relations and public affairs programs and external and internal communications….."

Stephen C. Meier Vice President, Public and Government Affairs, and Corporate Secretary

Freeper Yellow Rose of Texas 11/17/99 reports "…Stephen C. Meier is vice president, public and government affairs and corporate secretary for Times Mirror. He is responsible for Times Mirror’s community affairs, corporate communications, contributions, and government and industry relations. He also assists the company’s chairman, president and chief executive officer with external affairs and other matters….."

William A. Niese Vice President, General Counsel, and Assistant Secretary

Freeper bonaparte 12/15/99 "….More detailed info on the role Senate dems and Republicans played in Morrow's confirmation... The Senate confirmation vote ….Here is the glowing recommendation of Morrow by Hatch, as reported in the California Law Journal, following her confirmation. …."

Los Angeles Times Political Columnists at

Jim Robinson 11/11/99 "…. Does she owe her seat on the federal bench to the [Los Angeles] Times? And was she fair to rule against a foe of the Times and attempt to deprive us of our rightful fair use defense? You be the judge. …."

[Los Angeles Times articles before Judge Morrow’s confirmation:]

A Bar Open to All; The impressive rise of the woman lawyer

Giving Back; Lawyers Who Devote Time to Making Things Right

Senate's Endless Waiting Game; Delay on president's nominations is a major threat to the courts

Lawyer, Judge Nominated for Federal Bench

Mean Game in the Senate; Disclosure reflects indifference in the chamber to courts' plight

Drive Seeks to Block Clinton Judicial Nominees; Politics: Four GOP senators, Meese and Bork aid conservative effort. But in alleging judicial excesses, group's videotape omits some key facts.

Bipartisan Support Not Enough for Nominee; U.S. Senate: Margaret Morrow's judicial appointment is stalled despite backing across political spectrum. Some say she is victim of effort to downsize courts.

L.A. Attorney Wins Spot on District Court; Law: Senate confirms Central District nomination. Another candidate may not get a vote until February.

Margaret Morrow

GOP Politics Stalls Judicial Nominations

Rehnquist Chides GOP for Judicial Stalling

Rehnquist's Aim Is True

Senator Urges Clinton to Name Manella to Bench; Judiciary: Feinstein says U.S. attorney in L.A. would do 'top-notch' job. Meanwhile, president is considering District Judge Kim M. Wardlaw for an appellate post.

Nomination of Margaret Morrow

Long-Delayed Confirmation of Judge Expected Today; Politics: Key GOP senators reportedly are not targeting the L.A. lawyer in campaign against judicial activism.

The GOP's Judicial Delays and the Cost to Minorities

Political Logjam on Filling Vacant Judgeships Broken; Court: With help from chief justice and an end to impasse in Senate, 3 judges have been added to 9th Circuit this year and 2 are nearing final approval.

In Senate, Boxer Still a Fighter but Her Style Softens

Judge [Morrow] Rejects 'Fair Use' of News Protection

Jim Robinson 11/11/99 "….By the way, the Los Angeles Times is now giving their archives away free. Remember these? They're the very same archives for which we are being accused of adversely impacting their revenue stream. Free Archives Through January 9

And here are a few from the Washington Post's archives: ….You can search The Washington Post archives for free, but a fee will be charged to see the full text of any article published more than two weeks ago. Stories published in the past 14 days are available at no cost on our main search page. ….

FOR THE RECORD BY ROLL CALL REPORT SYNDICATE Thursday, February 19, 1998 ; Page V04 Section: Weekly - VA Word Count: 637 …. Click for complete article

Section: A Section Word Count: 823 ….
Click for complete article

WASHINGTON POST STAFF WRITER Friday, January 16, 1998 ; Page A01 Section: A Section Word Count: 1152 ….
Click for complete article

Senate Cliffhangers: Tune In Next Year. . . by Al Kamen Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, November 17, 1997 ; Page A21 Section: A Section
Word Count: 943 ….
Click for complete article

Do As I Say, Not As I Do By Al Kamen Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, October 31, 1997 ; Page A23 Section: A Section Word Count: 895 ….. Click for complete article

Clinton's Judicial Retreat When Naming Judges, He Is Quick to Cave By David Kairys Sunday, September 7, 1997 ; Page C01 Section: Outlook
Word Count: 1458 …..
Click for complete article

TODAY IN CONGRESS LEGI-SLATE Inc. Thursday, June 12, 1997 ; Page A04 Section: A Section Word Count: 493 …. Click for complete article

The Recess Appointment Game By Al Kamen Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 12, 1996 ; Page A11 Section: A Section Word Count: 969 ….
Click for complete article

More on David Kairys’ views:

"….THE POLITICS OF LAW: A PROGRESSIVE CRITIQUE, rev. ed., by David Kairys (Editor). Pantheon Books, 1982, 1990. xii, 481 pp. Paper $19.95. Reviewed by Howard Gillman, Department of Political Science, University of Southern California.

There is too little "law" and too little "politics" in many textbook discussions of legal politics and judicial decisionmaking. While it is common for texts to review the basic definitions of concepts such as torts and crimes, it is rare that one finds a systematic analysis of legal doctrine, at least not beyond a summary of conventional debates about familiar legal policies such as the exclusionary rule or the insanity defense…..

One of the best ways to open up a discussion about whether the content of law is this insignificant, or whether politics around the legal system is best understood as an acceptable species of pluralism, is to lay this portrait alongside the essays found in David Kairys' THE POLITICS OF LAW.

Page 37 follows:

Some of the contributors to this volume write as if their most important contribution is to demonstrate that law and judicial decisionmaking are not "separate from--and 'above'--politics, economics, culture, and the values or preferences of judges" (1). But if this is all the collection had to offer it would not distinguish itself from the rest of the pack. What distinguishes this wonderful volume is the effort to demonstrate systematic connections between legal doctrine and stable but mutable structures of illegitimate domination -- capital over labor, whites over non-whites, men over women, straights over gays and lesbians. While these authors have embraced the antiformalism of legal realism, they have not made the mistake of inferring that legal doctrine amounts to little more than empty rhetoric and is therefore unimportant in understanding the exercise of power, except insofar as players in the legal system feel compelled to exploit this rhetoric at their convenience as they pursue their extralegal partisan and factional agendas. These authors assume that, as the formal expression of an authoritative state ideology, law represents a set of choices about who's world view will be privileged and who's interests will be institutionalized, and they attempt to demonstrate that these choices are not best explained in the language of conventional politics or with reference to the dynamics of interest group competition. Moreover, they want to emphasize that politics is not just something you begin to see when you set law aside, but is also something that is embedded in legal doctrine and the language of judicial opinions in ways that raise important questions of social justice……"

"….On February 11, the Senate voted 67-28 to confirm Margaret Morrow to the Central District of California. Morrow, a corporate litigator and former president of the California Bar, was originally nominated on May 9, 1996. Despite her outstanding reco rd, she became the target of a coordinated effort by ultraconservative groups and Senators who subjected her to a campaign of misrepresentations, distortions and attacks on her record, branding her a "judicial activist." According to some of her opponents, she deserved to be targeted because "she is a member of California Women Lawyers," an absurd charge given that this bipartisan organization is among the most respected in the state. Another "strike" against her was one sentence taken from a 1988 article in the Journal of the California Bar Association criticizing special interest domination of the ballot initiative process in California. Her opponents viewed the statement as disdain for voter initiatives such as California's term limits law; however, they overlooked the fact that the article outlined a series of recommended reforms to preserve the process. They attacked Justice William Brennan, the "evangelist of judicial activism" and connected Morrow to him through a reference she made in a speech to "law as an engine of social change," even though she was advocating changes in the legal system as it operated in California to address widespread dissatisfaction in her profession….."

Research from Freeper amom 11/14/99:From the California Bar Journal

"…Morrow said. "I owe a huge debt of gratitude to Sen. (Barbara) Boxer and to the administration for their strong and unwavering support for the past two-and-a-half years."...


11/14/99 Yellow Rose of Texas - Tentative ruling says Ventura can bar video cameras from focus groups. By Encarnaci--n Pyle Staff writer

"….A federal judge in Los Angeles indicated in a tentative ruling Tuesday that the city has a right to bar Avenue TV Cable from broadcasting a series of community focus groups intended to allow people to air their concerns and desires about service. Judge Margaret Morrow is expected to issue a final judgment sometime next week, after Avenue TV and the city file further arguments……. "There has to be a legal basis under the law that your cameras and tape recorders have a right to be there," Morrow said. She said she couldn't find one -- not under the First Amendment, the Brown Act or Government Code 6091, which, with certain exceptions, gives radio and television stations permission to broadcast all meetings and hearings of administrative agencies, such as the city……"

Transferred to Judge Morrow

6/8/99 Docket "...97cv974 William J Madruga, et al v. Pacificare Health, et al …. Nature of Suit: 850 … Cause: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act....."

Transferred to Judge Morrow

7/7/98 Docket "…98cv3925 Andrew Petinarcou v. Seth Flam, et al …. Nature of Suit: 850 …. Cause: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act...."

Transferred to Judge Morrow

7/1/98 Docket "….98cv4196 Herb Rosenberg v. FPA Medical Mgt Inc, et al …. Nature of Suit: 850 …. Cause: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act ...."

Transferred From Judge Morrow

4/17/98 Docket "….98cv2617 Judy Liu v. Cybermedia Inc, et al …… Nature of Suit: 850 ….. Cause: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act...." NEWS RELEASE For Immediate Distribution ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS United States Attorney Central District of California Thom Mrozek, Public Affairs Officer

"…. Four Southern California residents have been sentenced -- three of them to federal prison -- for their convictions related to a complex insurance fraud scheme in which automobile accidents were staged or fabricated. …… United States Attorney Alejandro N. Mayorkas and Chief Michael S. Kochmanski of the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division, Southern California District, announced today that defendants were sentenced earlier this week in United States District Court in Los Angeles…… All of the defendants were sentenced by United States District Judge Margaret M. Morrow, who is scheduled to conduct a hearing on June 23 to determine how much restitution Ross and Martinez should pay….."

Boston Globe 3/26/00 Sam Allis "......Over the past 200 years, a rough balance has evolved in this country between the rights of the owners of intellectual property and those of the public who want access to their work. But a sizable body of legal experts now believes that technology being developed to protect intellectual property on the Internet - ''code'' in Web vernacular - may shatter this equilibrium and marginalize much of traditional copyright law. On a broader scale, a trifecta of code, aggressive licensing contracts, and recent federal legislation has buttressed owners' rights at the expense of public access. Leading this wave have been record companies and movie studios incensed over the piracy flourishing on the Net that costs them millions of dollars each year. Along the way, the tension between open content advocates who consider the Net nirvana and owners who find it a free fire zone on their creative work has elevated the arcane world of copyright law to marquee status. …….. John Perry Barlow, cofounder of the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which is dedicated to open Net access, has emerged as one of the field commanders waging rhetorical warfare against corporate intellectual property owners. ''What was previously considered a common human resource, distributed among the minds and libraries of the world,'' he writes, ''is now being fenced and deeded. It is as though a new class of enterprise had arisen, which claimed to own air and water.'' ……….. Horsefeathers, counter record and movie executives. ''If you can't protect what you own, you don't own anything,'' says Jack Valenti, the longtime president of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which represents the major studios. ''Society doesn't say you can copy anything you want. Fair Use is still very much alive. We have no problem with it.'' ………

Boston Globe 3/26/00 Sam Allis "......The stakes are huge. According to a recent report by Jupiter Communications, the Net music business alone will swell to $1.6 billion by 2002. Many legal experts expect the recording industry to prevail in its suits. But a larger question looms: Can intellectual property on the Net ever really be controlled? Despite the feverish efforts by the RIAA and MPAA, the answer may be no. If so, the anxiety flourishing in academic circles is unwarranted, at least for now. The recording industry association has sent out hundreds of cease-and-desist letters to rogue Web sites alleging copyright violations. The sites disappear into the ether like moonshiners in the hills of Appalachia, who simply move their stills to another site when authorities approach. ……….. Fisher said he believes efforts to control intellectual property on the Net by tightening existing law are doomed. ''Those will all fail because it is ineffectual to halt the ingenuity of hackers or the pace of technological innovation,'' he says. ''Ultimately, copyright owners and their representatives are going to lose.''......"

Boston Globe 3/26/00 Sam Allis "......But few outside the recording and movie industries, including O'Rourke, are happy with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, a leviathan federal law that made it a felony for someone merely to attempt circumvention of protective code. Mark Lemley, Samuelson's colleague at Boalt Hall, calls this ''unilateral technology disarmament'' in which one side uses code to build a wall, but the other side cannot use technology to crack it. ……. But new problems may arise from the DMCA. Jane Ginsburg, an intellectual property specialist at Columbia Law School, worries about the inability of code to identify motives behind the copying of a film in the wake of the DMCA. ''The same device that could stop me from copying a whole movie could also stop me from copying a small amount of the movie to show to my class,'' says Ginsburg. ''In that case, the copy would be locked up and I couldn't circumvent the lock because of the DMCA. Here is where the existence of an alternative copy is very important.'' ….."




Rules for Assignment of Cases such as WP/LAT v JR/FR: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Assignment of Cases and Duties to Judges General Order No 224 This General Order shall supersede General Orders numbered 83, 84, 224, 224-A, 224-B, 224-C, 224-D, 224-E, and 224-F previously filed with the Court. The assignment of cases and duties to the Judges of this Court shall be governed as follows: ….1.2 ASSIGNMENT OF CIVIL CASES The assignment of civil cases shall be completely at random through the Automated Case Assignment System, or otherwise, as approved by the Court and under the supervision of the Chief Judge. The assignments shall be in such a manner that each active judge of the Court over a period of time shall be assigned substantially an equal number of cases. Neither the Clerk nor any Deputy Clerk shall have discretion in determining the judge to whom any civil case shall be assigned. The action of the Clerk in the assignment of cases is ministerial only…."

Possible difficulty in finding information? Here’s an old Article with some information that may help: 1995 Star Tribune Tom Hamburger, Sharon Schmickle, Jessica Benson Merz, Roberta Hovde, Sylvia Frisch, Janet Reid

"….. Dozens of federal judges have failed to comply with financial disclosure requirements, hampering review of their activities for possible conflicts of interest or other improprieties. These findings came from a Star Tribune review of the two primary mechanisms that provide public checks on judicial behavior: the financial disclosure forms and ethics complaints that are filed against judges. ….One in six of the 222 judges' disclosure forms reviewed was incomplete or inaccurate in reporting outside income, trips, club memberships and teaching fees…. hundreds of ethics complaints about judges have been withheld from public files in Washington, D.C., in violation of judicial rules.

….The review did not disclose evidence of serious conflicts of interest or corruption -- such problems remain rare in the federal judiciary. But the disclosure omissions can make it difficult for the public to see whether judges have business or political relationships that might raise questions about their impartiality. ….. an important function of the disclosure process is to focus the attention of judges on activities and financial dealings that may raise ethical concerns, said the 1993 report of a national commission that reviewed judicial discipline.

…Even when the reports are filed properly, the judicial branch has made the information difficult to get. While they may be ordered by mail, they can be reviewed only in one Washington office and only between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m.

…And judges are informed of the names of those who look at their forms. That notification could be intimidating to those who have the most compelling reasons to scrutinize a judge's ethics: lawyers and litigants who expect to appear before the judge. …..."

Reforms urged in practice of taking gifts 1995 Star Tribune Sharon Schmickle Tom Hamburger

"…Public knowledge is a check on tyranny and corruption. Knowing this, legislators responded to the Watergate scandal of the 1970s by adopting the Ethics in Government Act, which requires public officials to disclose a broad accounting of their financial holdings, including a list of any gifts, lecture fees or other outside income. This way, the public could learn if judges, members of Congress or Cabinet officers had potential conflicts in their public dealings. But the disclosure information about judges is difficult to obtain. The information is only available in Washington at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Judicial Conference. And the material can only be examined between the hours of 1 and 3 p.m. on the days that a court worker is available to pull the files. In addition, the system is so loose that a judge can receive, say, a luxurious trip and not be required to report a dollar value for the travel or specify the source beyond a general description. ….In addition to the hurdles of distance, sloppy reporting and limited availability, individuals are further discouraged from checking these reports by the fact that judges are informed of the name and affiliation of each person requesting to see their forms………"

Alamo-Girl: Some background information that may help to explain the reasoning behind the secrecy and difficulty in the process of finding and disclosing concerns about judicial conduct [emphasis mine]:


"…..In 1990, Congress created the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal to investigate and study problems and issues related to the discipline and removal from office of life-tenured federal judges, and to evaluate current and proposed mechanisms for disciplining and removing federal judges. As part of its mission, the Commission undertook a rigorous study of the Act. In August 1993, the National Commission submitted its report with recommendations to Congress, the Chief Justice and the President.

During recent congressional hearings on legislation which would amend the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act by requiring that a complaint against a judge be handled by the chief judge of a different circuit, some House Judiciary subcommittee members acknowledged that they were not aware of the Report of the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal or its recommendations regarding the 1980 Act. This is cause for concern.…." JUDICIAL REFORM ACT OF 1997 WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1997 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC

"….Representative Ed Bryant has proposed in section 4 that a complaint brought against a Federal judge be referred to a circuit other than the circuit in which the judge who is the subject of the complaint sits, pursuant to rules developed by the Judicial Conference. This would ensure that greater objectivity would be brought to bear in cases where the disability or misconduct of a judge warrants punishment…."


"….In the view of the federal judiciary, the proposal in Section 4 is seriously deficient The Conference has looked carefully at this legislation and has recently adopted the following resolution:

The Judicial Conference of the United States expresses its strong opposition to any revision of the complaint procedure established by the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. 372(c), to provide that proceedings on complaints filed under that section shall be conducted by a circuit other than the circuit in which the named judge serves. Such a change would seriously threaten one of the central achievements of the Act: the enhancement of the ability of chief judges and circuit councils to resolve genuine problems of misconduct or disability within their own circuits through corrective actions or informal resolutions. See Report of the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal, at 104, 113, 123, 124 (August 1993). It would also dramatically increase the costs and burdens of the complaint process for the federal judiciary, if every complaint must be considered by judges who are hundreds or thousands of miles away from the complaint's principals. No substantial purpose would be served by such a change, because the current practice of handling complaints within the circuit does not create any perceptible problem of Conflict of interest.

…..The National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal, a Commission created by Congress to investigate and study issues involved in the tenure, discipline and removal of federal judges (Public Law No. 101–650, Dec. 1, 1990 (104 Stat. 5122), 410(1)), exhaustively examined the current arrangements for the discipline of federal judges. In its Report, published in 1993, the Commission lauded the existing judicial discipline system precisely because of its effectiveness in promoting informal and behind-the-scenes solutions to genuine problems of judicial misconduct or disability. The Commission stated as follows:

Although the 1980 Act [28 U.S.C. 372(c)] established a formal mechanism for filing complaints, perhaps its major benefit has been the facilitation of informal adjustments of problems of judicial misconduct or disability. In some situations, that has occurred without the filing of a complaint; in others it has followed a chief judge's inquiry in response to a complaint. A chief judge's power under the 1980 Act to conclude a proceeding ''if he finds that appropriate corrective action has been taken'' is a boon to negotiated resolutions.

* * * * *
The 1980 Act ... has yielded substantial benefits both in those few instances where it was necessary for the judicial councils to take action and, more importantly, in the many instances where the existence of its formal process enabled chief judges to resolve complaints through corrective action and, indeed, to resolve problems before a complaint was filed.

Report of the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal, at 104, 123 (August 1993).

These informal and corrective processes—the very core of any system for the discipline of life-tenured judges—cannot function effectively from remote locations. For this reason, Section 4—far from toughening discipline and making federal judges more accountable, as is its apparent intent—in fact would soften and undermine existing disciplinary processes.

Under the current system, a complaint with some substance goes for determination to judges who are in a position to act knowledgeably and tactfully to seek genuine solutions: a chief judge and/or judicial council within the circuit. The result is often effective action to resolve the problem. A more distant and impersonal authority, ignorant of the personalities involved in the matter and acting at arm's length, would be far less able to bring about such a result. Instead, the complaint process would likely become more formal, less efficient, and less productive.

Just as important, the potential exercise by judges in the same circuit of the formal complaint power provided for under current law strongly facilitates the informal resolution of genuine problems of judicial misconduct or disability without the filing of a formal complaint. The very existence of this power strengthens the judges' hand in working out solutions, since all know that the Act looms in the background as a less favored, but perhaps unavoidable, alternative. If, instead, all knew that the local judges had no ultimate power to act, this informal process so crucial to the effectiveness of the judicial discipline system would be severely weakened.

Accordingly, the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal concluded:

One of the most important findings of this Commission concerns the continuing importance of informal approaches to judicial misconduct and disability even after the 1980 Act.... Informal approaches remain central to the system of self-regulation within the judiciary.... [A] major benefit of the Act's formal process has been to enhance the attractiveness of informal resolutions. The continuing success of informal approaches is due in large part to the system of decentralized self-regulation that long antedated but was fortified by the Act.

[P]erhaps the greatest benefit of the 1980 Act has been the support it has provided, and the impetus it has given, to informal approaches to problems of federal judicial misconduct and disability. No evaluation of the 1980 Act should neglect its influence in this regard....

National Commission Report, supra, at 113, 124.

The proposed change also would undercut the ability of judges who have taken action to resolve a problem to monitor and follow up on that resolution, in order to ensure that the problem has truly been remedied. Only judges in the same circuit are in a position to do this. Under the proposed new system, conceivably judges in the same circuit as the judge against whom a complaint has been filed could be informed about the matter by the transferee circuit, in order to enable them to monitor results. This procedure, however, would require that two sets of judges in two different circuits become involved in the matter, a wasteful use of judicial resources.

Thus, the notion that it is somehow desirable for complaints to be determined by far-off authorities, who know less about the judge accused or about local circumstances, overlooks the 45 very point of the current judicial discipline process.

Based on my experience as Chief Judge in handling complaints arising under the existing system, I can tell you that this proposal will mean a host of practical difficulties and concomitant increased costs.

….. In sum, Section 4 would transform the entire framework of the judicial discipline process, a process that the National Commission found has been ''working reasonably well.'' National Commission Report, supra, at 123. In doing so it would undercut many of the most important virtues of the present system, and would impose significant cost burdens on the federal judiciary, all in an attempt to address a perceived conflict of interest ''problem,'' which we believe does not exist……"


Two recent developments:

There have been no responses to the request to let us know if any of the above information is false or lacks authenticity.

We have been unable to get back into the website.

Freeper amom reports 11/23/99 "…There are at least 7 domains under Arnold & Porter of 555 12th St. in DC. The oldest one, APORTER.COM, was created 3 Aug ’93. Last updated 29 July ’99 The second oldest is ARNOLDPORTER.COM which was created and last updated on 12 May ’97 Of the other five all were created on 10 Oct ’99. I visited them prior to today and found all of these to be under construction…in 11 languages….."

Freeper Roscoe reports 11/22/99 Instructions for Requesting a Copy of a Financial Disclosure Report from the Office of the Committee on Financial Disclosure

"…. These instructions provide you with the information necessary to request a copy of a judge's or judiciary employee's financial disclosure report filed with the Office of the Committee on Financial Disclosure in accordance with the requirements of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. app. 4, §§ 101-111), as amended. Before a financial disclosure report can be released to any requester, the attached AO Form 10A, Request for Examination of Report Filed by Judicial Officer or Judicial Employee, must be completed. Each judge or employee whose report you request must be listed by name on the form. You can obtain a copy of AO Form 10A by clicking on the link below or contacting the Office of the Committee on Financial Disclosure….. Please note that Section 105(b)(2)(A) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, requires that you provide your name, occupation, and address on the AO Form 10A. Section 105(b)(2)(B) of the Act requires that if you are obtaining a report at the request of or on behalf of another individual or an organization, you must specifically list that individual or organization in the appropriate block on the AO Form 10A. Section 105(b)(3)(C) requires you to sign the request form indicating that you are aware of the prohibitions on wrongful use as delineated on the form and in section 105(c)(1) of the Act. Failure to comply with these statutory requirements is cause to deny your request…… Each judge or employee will be notified that you have requested a copy of his or her report. Financial disclosure reports also can be reviewed in the Office of the Committee on Financial Disclosure by appointment. Appointments should be made at least 5 business days in advance by calling (202) 502-1850 to ensure that copies of the requested reports are available for review. AO Form 10A (PDF) …"

Freeper Roscoe 11/22/99 Complaining about a Federal Judge How to file a complaint

"… Each federal circuit has established a process for complaints against federal judges as required under the Judicial Discipline Act. Though the form and rules differ in every circuit, the complaint must be filed with the chief judge of the circuit in every circuit. The specific form for the circuit must be used and the complaint must fall into a disciplinary catagory as specified by the circuit's disciplinary rules. The complaint form and rules for a federal circuit may be ordered from the following locations: Ninth Circuit (AZ, CA, NV, OR, WA, MT, ID, AL, HI): Tel: 415-556-9800 ….."

Freeper ~Kim4VRWC’s~ 11/23/99 reports

"…I noticed that washington post charges fees for some of their news archives. I found this information out from our local's also posted on my webpage. If the information is helpful to other people, feel free to add it to your ''legacy'' information.

HOT TIP!!!! If you own a library card you might have the ability to search your favorite news and/or magazine publication's FULL TEXT archives for FREE!!! If your library has a website, see if they have an online database that holds archives for nationwide news publications. Normally, you will have to login to the database from their website, using your library card number, and a PIN number that the library assigns to your account. If a PIN number hasn't been assigned, (assuming that the news service is available) all you will have to do is request one!!!! Currently, most major news publication charge a fee for searching their archives. The library service eliminates the fee! If your library doesn't have one, ask them when they will. It's a wonderful service. I can retrieve full text articles that are up to 20 years old from our library's database! (including the Wall Street Journal and New York Times) …."

Freeper Roscoe 11/24/99 on "…How to Get Copies of Campaign Reports Filed by Candidates and Committees Campaign disclosure reports filed by California state and local candidates and campaign committees are not filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission. Copies can be obtained from the following agencies:

The committee Statement of Organization (Form 410), and the Candidate Intention/Candidate Campaign Bank Account (Forms 501 and 502) are filed with:

Secretary of State
Political Reform Division
1500 11th Street, Room 495
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone (916) 653-6224
Fax (916) 653-5045

Statewide candidates and officeholders, Supreme Court justices, state ballot measure committees, and other committees that support or oppose state candidates and ballot measures, or that support or oppose candidates and ballot measures in more than one county, file campaign reports with the Secretary of State and the election official for the county in which they are domiciled. They also file with:

Registrar-Recorder of Los Angeles County

Campaign Reporting Unit
12400 Imperial Highway
Norwalk, CA 90650
Phone (562) 462-2339
Fax (562) 651-2548

Department of Elections-City and County of San Francisco
Campaign Statements
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall - Room 48
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone (415) 554-4375
Fax (415) 554-7344

State legislative officeholders and candidates, State Board of Equalization members and candidates, appellate court justices, and superior court judges and candidates file with: Secretary of State, the election official for the county that has the largest number of registered voters in their district and their county of domicile.

Elected officers and candidates for offices in jurisdictions that contain parts of two or more counties (other than legislative, Board of Equalization, or appellate court districts) file with the election official for the county with the largest number of registered voters in their district and their county of domicile.

Elected county officeholders and candidates for county offices, municipal court judges and candidates, and committees that support or oppose candidates or ballot measures being voted on within a single county file with the election official for that county.

Elected city officeholders and candidates for city offices, and committees that support or oppose candidates and ballot measures in a single city, file with the city clerk.

 WorldNetDaily 12/7/99 Larry Klayman

"…..When was the last time that you heard of a federal judge getting in trouble for allegedly taking bribes, banning a lawyer from his courtroom for expressing his opinion or asking a question, sitting on a case for years as the plaintiff goes under financially, or for that matter making one bad decision after another? The answer is almost never. Federal judges, like lawyers, generally protect themselves. Indeed, federal judges -- who are appointed by the president for life, through a system of political patronage -- have rigged the system; complaints of misconduct are investigated by their peers.

So it was when Associated Press and The Washington Times recently reported that Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had bypassed the random "wheel of fortune" assignment system to send two Chinagate-related criminal cases to recently appointed Clinton judicial appointees (who then dismissed the charges) and that eight Clinton-appointed judges, calling themselves the "Magnificent Eight," were holding secret meetings, that Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, felt duty-bound to file a complaint against the nine allegedly offending judges before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the body which oversees lower court judges…..

In a decision released publicly last Friday, Judge Williams, in dismissing Judicial Watch's complaint -- and branding the reported allegations of the Associated Press and The Washington Times frivolous -- effectively admitted to not conducting an investigation at all. Relying only on letters of Judge Johnson denying the allegations, and surmising, without any factual investigation, that the "Magnificent Eight" had not discussed ongoing cases against the Clinton administration in their secret meetings, he wrote,

The complaint of misconduct is "wholly unsupported" and is dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 372 (c)(3).

Specifically, with regard to the allegation that Judge Johnson had bypassed the random assignment system, Judge Williams held:

... [t]he alleged impropriety is incapable of being established through investigation.

As for the secret meetings of the "Magnificent Eight," he concluded, also without investigation, that judges would not act on their political affiliations: is inappropriate to impose on the court the burdens of an investigation.

In the letters submitted by Judge Johnson -- upon which Judge Williams relied in deciding not to conduct an investigation of any type whatsoever -- she wrote,

To my knowledge, no judge of this Court has made a formal or informal complaint of any kind, and I find it demeaning to be called upon to respond to an apparent anonymous whispering campaign conducted by various media outlets. Thus, I state unequivocally and emphatically that the unsupported allegations made by Judicial Watch are patently false and deserve to be summarily dismissed.

However shocking, Judge Johnson's candor is also refreshing, because it unmasks the attitude of a surprising number of federal judges when they are called to answer for their conduct….."

Associated Press 12/7/99 Richard Carelli

"….In an unprecedented move, a U.S. District Court judge in Florida has cut off public access nationwide to the financial disclosure reports all federal judges are required to file each year.

The moratorium was ordered by Judge William J. Zloch in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., out of concern that posting the reports on the Internet would mean ``universal and anonymous access, raising security issues,'' federal courts spokeswoman Karen Redmond said Tuesday…..

Zloch's action came after a news organization,, requested the 1998 financial disclosure reports of some 1,600 active and semiretired federal judges and magistrates as part of a project that would make all of them available on the Internet.

Redmond said Zloch's order, entered last week, barring public release of all reports, is temporary -- designed to give a committee of judges time to discuss the ramifications of an Internet posting.

Zloch is a member of the 26-judge U.S. Judicial Conference, which is chaired by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and makes federal court policy. Zloch chairs the conference's 15-member financial disclosure committee. ……."

12/10/99 James Gordon Meek/

"….The 15-member financial disclosure committee for the federal bench met here today but adjourned without announcing whether it would comply with a request from to release financial information of 1,600 federal judges. The panel met for over four hours to discuss the ramifications of an Ethics in Government Act request for 12,580 pages of financial disclosure documents from 1998 that would be scanned and placed in a searchable database accessible on the Internet……. At 2:15 p.m. today, Zloch, chairman of the Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure, and other members emerged from the meeting tight-lipped as they strolled across the street from the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building to the restaurant America in Union Station. Asked if the group had reached a decision, Zloch told, "I'm not going to comment, thanks."…… The committee will make an announcement soon, federal courts spokeswoman Karen Redmond said…… Today's meeting was closed to the public and security officers barred a reporter from entering the south wing of the Marshall Building, where the conference was convened. An reporter was instructed to wait in the enormous glass atrium separating the two halves of the office complex. Three hours later, a security supervisor informed the reporter that he was "loitering" and would have to leave the premises. …. When agreed to leave the building but stand on the edge of the property line -- in the street -- the security supervisor said Capitol Police officers "could be summoned" to remove the reporter. Calls to property manager Mark Williams were not returned by late today……"

Time Daily 12/10/99

"…..The choppy waters of Internet copyright law just got even rougher. This week, a federal judge in Utah issued a preliminary injunction against Sandra and Jerald Tanner, whose site, which contains criticisms of the Mormon church, provides links to text pirated from the church's Handbook of Instructions. The judge, whose injunction will stand until the case is tried or settled, said it is likely the couple engaged in "contributory copyright infringement" by linking to a site they knew, or should have known, contained the unauthorized copies. The Tanners' lawyer, on the other hand, argued that since the couple were acting strictly as intermediaries - an anonymous source pointed them toward the text - they were not guilty of direct copyright infringement. "This is a whole new category of information, and it leads to a whole new category of copyright law," says TIME technology writer Joshua Quittner. This case opens up a can of worms many in the communications arena ardently hoped would remain tightly sealed……"

Washington Post 12/15/99 Joe Stephens

"…. A committee of federal judges has permanently barred an Internet news organization from receiving public documents that list judges' investments, a move attacked as "an offense" by a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In a statement released yesterday, the U.S. Judicial Conference disclosure committee said permitting the Internet company to collect the statements and post them on the Web could endanger federal judges. The judicial conference, made up of judges from around the country, sets policy for the federal judiciary….. The committee said by posting the reports on the Web, the news organization would violate a requirement that they supply a list of everyone on whose behalf the copies had been requested. The committee also said Internet publication would circumvent a law that allows the judiciary to black out "personal and sensitive information" on the reports if it could endanger a judge. ….."

"…. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), a member of the Judiciary Committee, said he was disappointed. "The unilateral decision of the conference to block Internet access to all information is an offense to the openness that helps define our system of government," Grassley said in a statement. "The public has a right to be informed about potential conflicts of interest for judges, just as it does for members of Congress and the administration." …..."

AP - Yahoo 12/15/99 Laurie Asseo

"....A federal judicial committee's refusal to release financial records of about 1,600 federal judges and magistrates to a news organization that wants to put them on the Internet has been criticized by open-records advocates..... ``Federal judges have unique security concerns,'' said David Sellers, spokesman for the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts. ``That's why last year Congress provided the Judicial Conference with special authority regarding the release of their financial disclosure reports. Any action that threatens, compromises or negates this authority must be taken very seriously.'' .....``This may be the first time that the government has declared the Internet off-limits for specific kinds of public documents,'' said Sauter of, which had paid $2,516 to copy 12,580 pages of documents. ``These documents contain information that Congress has declared the public has the right and need to know.'' ....... Sauter said other news organizations, such as WNBC and The Kansas City Star, already have some judges' financial disclosure reports online. ``Does this decision mean that those organizations are violating the law?'' he asked. ...."

Freeper an amused spectator observes "….. His comments came a day after the 15-member Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure announced it had voted to deny a request from for the 1998 financial documents for all 1,600 federal judges. The committee said posting the information online "could endanger" judges. ,… Isn't that odd? Here we have the entire 15-member Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure agreeing that merely posting this financial information online is a twenty-alarm transformation of the information, yet the honorable Judge Morrow can't seem to find any transformation on the Free Republic website, no matter how hard she looks ….." 12/15/99 James Meek "….The House subcommittee that oversees the federal courts will likely hold public hearings on the decision by federal judges to block the publication of their financial disclosure statements on the Internet, congressional leaders said today. Rep. Howard Coble, R-N.C., said the judges' move was a possible "subterfuge that gives additional weight" to the distrust many Americans have for public officials….."

The Washington Times 12/28/99 Michelle Malkin "…..This is a crucial First Amendment case that pits the Beltway Star Chamber against cutting-edge on-line journalists…… In September, APBNews filed a freedom of information request seeking access to the 1998 financial disclosure forms of every federal judge and magistrate in the nation - 1,600 in all….. Perhaps no other institution in Washington is as ripe for media scrutiny as the federal judiciary. Its members are appointed for life and its administrative operations are shrouded in secrecy. A few mainstream news outlets have published the financial records of federal judges in their regions. But APBNews' plan to post the entire federal judiciary's financial filings on the Internet - 13,000 pages on a searchable database - is the most ambitious to date. Anyone, anywhere, anytime, could find out whether a federal judge had a financial conflict of interest in a given case….. That threat has the federal bench's black robes in a bunch. The U.S. Judicial Conference on Financial Disclosure last week permanently barred APBNews from receiving the financial disclosure forms. APBNews plans to file suit…..The federal panel's refusal to make financial documents as accessible as possible has less to do with protecting physical security than with preserving political comfort. These judges have controlled damage to their reputations by practicing trickle-down public disclosure unchallenged for decades. But with boundless space and once-unthinkable speed, new media outlets such as APBNews can expose the workings of government in a way that old journalism could achieve only in its dreams….."

Freeper Demidog USSC 2/23/00 "……There is an ever growing movement in America to change the meaning and intent of our Constitution, and the words of our founders, for the purpose of profit. This profit might be political capitol, ideology or money. One glaring example is the effort by America's major newspapers to create a monopoly out of "free speech" where one was never intended to exist. If it isn't written on their pulp, then it shouldn't count according to them.

Newspaper publishers have always had grandiose ideas about their worth. The other available forms of media haven't done much to extinguish this esteem. "All the President's Men" brought to America in book and film the destruction of an American president by gritty investigative jorunalists. Included of course was the glorification of the newspaper's publishers and editors. "Lou Grant" probably wouldn't have been possible were it not for the success of "All the President's Men." Like the aforementioned film, "Lou Grant" generally portrayed the print news media as "the real thing" and TV as somewhat phony and geared toward a dumber audience. If you see the irony already, I won't bother mentioning it. I suppose it is also noteworthy that both papers portrayed by the film and subsequent T.V. series are the very same newspapers that have initiated a joint copyright infringement suit against Free Republic: The Washington Post and the L.A. Times. (Actually the paper in "Lou Grant" was called the "Trib" but was filmed in the L.A. Times downtown L.A. facility).

In reality, history has never been too kind for Newspaper publishers or authors. While the media might be credited for some of the more notable events in history that are media-born(Spanish-American War, "Dewey Wins!", "Nixon Resigns!") it is the events themselves that are the discussion of historians as opposed to what was being written about those events by reporters.

Historians may rely on newspaper reports for clues. However, the real information does not lie within the ragged linings of bird cages across America but in the archives of American government institutions and libraries. The newspaper and the reporter are barely germaine to history.

Newspapers today have gotten too big for their britches. This is partly due to their consolidation by large media conglomorates in an effort to raise profit margins and partly due to the fact that they have been pampered by the very officials that they are supposed to be watching. At any rate, newspaper publishers today believe, erroneously, that anything they produce is to be considered manna from heaven and protected from criticism and competition. I'm of course talking about copyrights.

The constitution was never intended to give newspaper publishers and writers the kinds of protections they are today demanding.

Some of what today's newspaper publishers demand regarding their "intellectual property" appears to make sense. For instance, Reuters, AP and UPI make their living by supplying fodder to newspapers that can't afford to pay reporters to cover the globe.

These suppliers might hire their own reporters or use free-lance writers from around the world, but rely on a buisness model that would fail if any newspaper could use their work without paying a fee. Since they don't sell advertising, they have to make up for this fact by charging for access to their articles via subscription. Pirating a connection to the "wire" would be a means to steal the work product of the wire services. So it makes sense to afford these entities some protection but only within that specific context.

This buisness model has also spread to some of the more respected (and not so respected) newspapers who might happen to employ a particularly talented columnist or cartoonist. And it is definately true that one may consider those two specific groups as "artists" in the sense that they create original work. But I really object to the notion that any newspaper report is subject to copyright protection.

Originally in America, the idea of a copyright was to give artists and scientists the means to profit from their own labor and ingenuity. The copyright was meant to protect works of art, engineering and science and was intended to further and not limit the arts. It was never meant to protect Newspapers or dailies as their work product could never be construed as usefull for more than a day. This was the view of the courts and Congress.

In the USCC Ruling BAKER v. SELDEN, 101 U.S. 99 (1879) Justice Bradley quoted from a Circuit Court opinion to illustrate the intent of the copyright law.

The remarks of Mr. Justice Thompson in the Circuit Court in Clayton v. Stone & Hall (2 Paine, 392), in which copyright was claimed in a daily price-current, are opposite and instructive. He says: 'In determining the true construction to be given to the act of Congress, it is proper to look at the Constitution of the United States, to aid us in ascertaining the nature of the property intended to be protected. 'Congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their writings and discoveries.' The act in question was passed in execution of the power here given, and the object, therefore, was the promotion of science; and it would certainly be a pretty extraordinary view of the sciences to consider a daily or weekly publication of the state of the market as falling within any class of them. They are of a more fixed, permanent, and durable character. The term 'science' cannot, with any propriety, by applied to a work of so fluctuating and fugitive a form as that of a newspaper or price-current, the subject-matter of which is daily changing, and is of mere temporary use.'

Newspapers by and large report events as they occur on a daily basis. These events are already in the public domain. So the work product of a reporter is simply a regurgitation of things already transpired to an audience that may or may not be privy to those events. It is a widely held belief that "yesterday's newspaper" isn't worth anything to anyone. Yet, today's newspapers would like you (and their customer publications) to believe that what they have to offer is worth more than it really is. In the case of the wire services, what they are offering is not intellectual property but a service. A function of labor and certainly not "art" as intended by the founding fathers when they created the copyright laws. If what newspapers offered really fell under the jurisdiction of a copyright, then you and I (or our employers) could continue to charge for work we've already performed and for which we were remunerated last week. What a novel concept. (try it on your boss sometime).

Newspapers today are relying on a very broad translation of the copyright law as ammended in 1909 in order to come to the absurd conclusion that everything that they produce is subject to copyright. 347 U.S. 201, 210 4:

"That the works for which copyright may be secured under this Act shall include all the writings of an author."

This might tend to lend some creedence to their claims. However, the supreme court in &graphurl=&court=US&case=/us/347/201.html"Mazer v Stein (USSC 1954) opined that in reality this was merely a word change and did not magically broaden the copyright laws to extend to things other than usefull works of art:

Some writers interpret this section as being coextensive with the constitutional grant, [17] but the House Report, while inconclusive, indicates that it was "declaratory of existing law" only.

The supreme court in 1971 had also ruled that copyrights should only be granted to works that furthered the arts and sciences and did not apply to works that merely described readily available information:

'An author's 'Writing' or an inventor's 'Discovery' can, in the constitutional sense, only extend to that which is his own. It may not be broadened to include matters within the public domain. The congressional power to grant monopolies for 'Writings and Discoveries' is likewise limited to that which accomplishes the stated purpose of promoting 'the Progress of Science and useful Arts.' No distinction is made in the constitutional language between copyrights and patents and I would not create one by judicial gloss. Where, as here, a writer has published a book which compiles and applies infor- [404 U.S. 887 , 891] mation available to all men, should that writer have a monopoly on the ideas in that book through a copyright issued merely because the words used were the author's own?'&graphurl=&court=US&case=/us/404/887.html"LEE v. RUNGE , 404 U.S. 887 (1971)

It is often said that yesterday's news isn't worth the paper its printed on. The internet explosion however, has created a situation where yesterday's newspaper might in fact be worth something. Newspapers are quite interested in the financial profits they can acquire by selling access to their archives to the general public. However, these archives are available free of charge in your own public library. So it isn't the intellectual property of the author that holds the value. In general what's being marketed by on-line newspapers and archivists is access to that information via searchable index and in a format that is easily copied. Microfiche simply isn't convenient for copying or searching. If you've paid for access to an archived article as I have, you know that you've paid for the convenience of being able to remain in your seat. With prices in general holding at $3.00 to $5.00, one enjoys a savings in fuel and time by obtaining archived articles on-line.

Again it isn't the works of anonymous or named writers that is being marketed but the access to those works. The events that they describe are already in the public domain and any attempt to claim otherwise is not rational. The overwhelming body of case law on copyrightable material suggests otherwise. What the Washington Post and other newspapers and service providers are attempting to create is a monopoly on archives. And one might also argue that in the case of the action against Free Republic they are attempting to shut down public scrutiny of their work product.

The founders did not intend to protect newspapers (presumeably in existence to report public events) from criticism nor did they intend newspapers to hold monopolies on their work. Quite the contrary. Newspapers that hold monopolies on such information are far more likely to bow to the government tendency to only provide such information as would benefit their designs on tyranny.

It is our right as citizens to copy and use the work product produced by these newspapers. The term free speech holds many meanings to many people. In my view the word free not only indicates a freedom to express oneself but in the matter of political machinations and government activity, a right to possess information. Newspapers get their sole income from advertising. Subscriptions don't even approach covering the costs of printing and the staff needed to produce the product. The vast majority of their costs are covered by advertisers. And in that sense, even the articles themselves can be considered to be advertising. The writing is what generates an interest in the product and that interest attracts advertisers. However none of the writing can be considered to be protected from copy. The publishers may think so but that is because they've been watching too many movies. The constitution does not support such folly….."

Associated Press 3/14/00 Laurie Asseo "……Facing a lawsuit by an Internet news site, the federal judiciary agreed Tuesday to release judges' financial disclosure reports to organizations that plan to put them online. Prodded by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the judiciary's policymaking body reversed a judicial committee's refusal in December to release the reports to, an online site that planned to post the reports on the Internet. The committee had said posting the reports, which contain information on judges' stock holdings, family assets and the value of gifts they receive, would create a security risk. The Judicial Conference voted 16-8 to reverse the committee's action, said Chief Judge Ralph Winter of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who chairs the conference's executive committee. The judges decided "there is no discretion to deny entirely the reports of all ... judges simply because they are going to be placed on the Internet," Winter told reporters. ……"



Fair Use v Copyright – Excellent Read, Strongly Recommend: (Introduction – Emphasis Mine) "…

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power:

to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusvie Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. (1)

This clause is the constitutional authority for congressional enactment of the Copyright Act.(2)Of all the powers granted to Congress in Section 8, Clause 8 is the only clause that has an expressly stated purpose: "to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts.(3)The clause also expressly states the means for achieving that purpose: granting limited monopoly rights to authors.(4)

Copyright law in this country is often spoken of as a balance between the rights granted to copyright owners and the rights guaranteed to the users of copyrighted materials.(5)One of the most important counterbalances to the rights granted to copyright owners is the right guaranteed to the users of copyrighted works to make a "fair use" of copyrighted material.(6)The right of fair use exists to assist copyright law in fulfilling its express constitutional purpose: the promotion of the progress of knowledge and learning.(7) The right of fair use protects the public from the copyright monopoly becoming so expansive that it stifles the very progress of knowledge and learning that copyright law is constitutionally mandated to promote.

Under current copyright law, the right of fair use guarantees an important "breathing space within the confines of copyright."(8)Yet courts often view an assertion of fair use by a copyright defendant suspiciously and appear to grant such a defense only grudgingly.(9)While there are exceptions to this generalization, courts have not fully embraced the importance of fair use as a counterbalance to the limited monopoly rights granted to copyright owners.(10)After all, it is in some ways a unique idea that the public has the right to make certain kinds of uses(11)of another's property.(12)These permitted uses, however, are an important part of what allows copyright to promote knowledge and learning in the United States.

Pronounced one of the most troublesome areas of the law, the fair use "doctrine has been said to be 'so flexible as virtually to defy definition.' "(13)Several scholars have suggested that fair use should only be found where there is a market failure.(14)In the context of copyright law the market can fail for several reasons: high transaction costs associated with achieving a market bargain, high externalities that cannot be internalized in a bargained-for exchange, or the existence of non-monetizable interests that are not factored into the bargain by the parties.(15)

Recently two appellate courts have twisted the market failure theory of fair use on its head, rejecting the fair use defense largely because of the apparent absence of one type of market failure. These courts neglected to fully appreciate the type of market failure that is more central to copyright and the fair use doctrine today. In Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc.,(16)and American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc.,(17)the courts rejected claims of fair use because the copyright owners had established permission systems for licensing the types of uses at issue. The plaintiffs in these cases argued that if there is a simple, efficient system to obtain permission for the use at issue, then the claim of fair use should be denied. In both of these cases the courts were persuaded by the plaintiffs' arguments, holding that because there was a way to pay for the use, and the defendants did not pay for a license, the plaintiffs had suffered "market harm," an often determinative finding in fair use cases.

A permission system only remedies the market failure that occurs because of high transaction costs. A permission system does nothing to cure the kind of market failure that is more central to the purpose of fair use and the constitutional purpose of copyright: the market failure that occurs when there are significant external benefits associated with a particular use that cannot be internalized in any bargained-for exchange. The types of uses that fair use is designed to permit are exactly those uses that have significant external benefits that are spread across society as a whole.(18)

The adoption of the view that no fair use should be found if the copyright owner has set up a "permission system" to license such use threatens the constitutionally mandated goal of copyright law which is to promote the progress of knowledge and learning. Under this narrowed market failure view of fair use, if a copyright owner can establish an efficient "permission system" to collect fees for a certain kind of use, then the copyright owner will be able to defeat a claim of fair use. This limited view of fair use has the potential to allow copyright owners to control alluses of their works, thereby eliminating the necessary "breathing space" in copyright law.

The overemphasis on monetary issues and permission systems by lower courts deciding fair use cases without full consideration of the external benefits of the use at issue has led judges to treat fair use as the step-child of copyright law.(19)This second-class treatment of the right of fair use is particularly apparent with what are labeled non-transformative uses.(20)Under the current scheme of copyright, granting ever broader rights to copyright holders for ever longer periods of time,(21)the guarantee of the right of fair use must be protected and even expanded.(22)If courts are going to employ a market failure approach to fair use, a complete recognition of all the potential types of market failures that can occur relating to uses of copyrighted works is critical to maintaining the appropriate balance in copyright law. The goal of this Article is to further that understanding by exploring the use and misuse of the market failure approach in fair use cases especially in the context of permission systems and non-transformative fair uses….."

 Freeper mrsmith 11/28/99

"…. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan "...The publication here was not a "commercial" advertisement in the sense in which the word was used in Chrestensen. It communicated information, expressed opinion, recited grievances, protested claimed abuses, and sought financial support on behalf of a movement whose existence and objectives are matters of the highest public interest and concern... ...In deciding the question now, we are compelled by neither precedent nor policy to give any more weight to the epithet "libel" than we have to other "mere labels" of state law. N. A. A. C. P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 429. Like insurrection,[note 7] contempt ,[note 8] advocacy of unlawful acts,[note 9] breach of the peace,[note 10] obscenity,[note 11] solicitation of legal business,[note 12] and the various other formulae for the repression of expression that have been challenged in this court, libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment. " ….."


Roll Call 12/2/99 John Mercurio

"…..A legal cyberspat broke out this week when officials of the Senate Democratic and Republican campaign committees traded charges that each have set up Web sites that break the law. Democrats started the skirmish, claiming that the National Republican Senatorial Committee's Web site,, could violate copyright laws because it features "framed"archived newspaper articles that are only available through individual media organizations for a fee. ……"

"…..Responding to DSCC claims that he said are baseless, however, NRSC Legal Counsel Craig Engle noted that Democrats may have committed legal infractions of their own. Engle said the DSCC may have violated campaign finance laws by soliciting contributions on its own Web site,, without an authorization statement or other disclaimers required under the Federal Election Campaign Act…… Engle also alleged that the DSCC's Web site violates a rule enforced by the Internal Revenue Service, which requires political fundraising organizations, such as the DSCC, to state to prospective donors that their political contributions are not tax deductible for federal income-tax purposes….."

"….."Clearly, the NRSC is grasping at straws in their effort to cover up their campaign to pirate intellectual property," said DSCC Deputy Communications Director David DiMartino……The DSCC initially targeted a page on the NRSC's site called "News Desk," which features stories from major media organizations, including ABC News, The Washington Post and The New York Times. Trying to determine whether the NRSC had committed wrongdoing, DiMartino sent the Post an e-mail Nov. 19 asking whether the committee could use Post articles "within frames on our website." Michael Golden, a customer care representative for the Post's Web site,, responded that his organization allows text links, with no use of the Post logo, graphics or photos, to current articles for two weeks after they are published. After that time, Golden said, the articles are transferred to fee-based archives "and are unavailable for linking. We also do not allow our content to appear within frames at other sites."

"….But Engle countered that the NRSC does not need the Post's consent because it is shielded by a "fair use" exemption to federal copyright law, which stipulates that it is not considered a copyright infringement if the reproduced material is intended for "criticism, comments, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research." "A political party's Web site is much like the television commercials. It's general public advertising, and we're reproducing some of this work to echo it for attribution," he said. "The Post owns the content," Elias countered. "People can use it if they have the permission. They can't if they don't." …"

San Francisco Examiner 12/8/99 Scott Winokur

"….A Northern California company has accused the Los Angeles Times of pirating a $2,000 software program designed for journalists, at a cost of millions of dollars in lost revenue to the manufacturer, who alleges that possibly thousands of programs were stolen.

In a lawsuit filed Oct. 26 in federal court in Sacramento, CE Engineering Publishing Systems, Inc. of Loomis, in the Sierra foothills, asked for $5.4 million in treble damages from the Times for alleged copyright infringement, breach of licensing agreements, theft of trade secrets and unfair competitive practices.

"Their attitude is we'll do what ever we want. The power of the press belongs to those who have one," said CE's founder and Chief Executive Officer Chris Ellsworth. "The L.A. Times is saying, really, we don't think we should have to pay for software -- we've taken the liberty to copy it and we'll do it thousands of times," Ellsworth said. "I know they're setting records on net profits. CE Engineering's software is part of that. What it boils down to is software piracy." ….."

CIO magazine 1/2000 WebBusiness Jon Albano "..... Does the decision mean that lively and informed debate on potential media bias has been squelched by two large, establishment media corporations? Probably not. The commercial nature of Free Republic's operations, as well as its decision to permit the posting the full-text of copyrighted newspaper articles, were critical to the failure of the fair use defense. The case does demonstrate, however, that there is a First Amendment price to pay for the protections afforded to copyrighted forms of expression....." Jonathan M. Albano, is a lawyer at the Boston law firm of Bingham Dana.


Reason Magazine 3/2000 Jesse Walker "….There is an inherent conflict between intellectual property rights and freedom of speech, a tension between your right to control a story you've written and my right to use it as raw material for my own work…… On one hand, as information has grown more valuable, copyright and trademark law has become increasingly restrictive. At the same time, there has been, in the words of MIT media studies professor Henry Jenkins, an "explosion of grassroots, participatory culture," a new high-tech folkway that not only draws on pop culture but appropriates from it more easily than ever before, and disseminates itself on a wider scale. Now the companies atop the culture industry, from Fox to Disney to LucasFilm, are starting to notice this alternate universe of fans, parodists, and collagists. They don't quite understand what they're finding, and for the most part they don't like it. And they've got the government on their side……… In theory, a copyright is simply an incentive to create: Compose something original, the Constitution says, and we'll make sure you get a chance to profit from it…. Copyrights, unlike trademarks, have always posed problems, even if you think they're necessary. They are, after all, government-granted monopolies; as such, they should be strictly limited and carefully watched. If someone wants to extend their reach, he'd better have a compelling argument for doing so, and lawmakers should approach his proposal with due skepticism. Instead, Congress acts as a rubber stamp for copyright holders, especially the big campaign donors in the entertainment industry. At the dawn of the republic, copyrights lasted for just 14 years and could be renewed for another 14. This period has been gradually extended, especially lately: It has been lengthened 11 times in the last 40 years, most recently by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998. ….. "



11/9/99 Greg Miller "….In a ruling that could shape how copyright laws are applied in cyberspace, a federal judge on Monday rejected a conservative Web site's position that posting articles copied without permission from major newspapers is legally protected. …."

From Alamo-Girl: Here is an illustration of why it is in the best interest of the LAT/WP to have the entire article posted to Free Republic before comments are made instead of excerpts or summaries as they are seeking:

An excerpt of this article could look like this:

11/9/99 Los Angeles Times Greg Miller "....Pamela Samuelson, an expert on copyright law at UC Berkeley, said [Judge Margaret] Morrow was mistaken in not giving Free Republic some latitude because it copies and posts articles mainly to enable Internet users to comment on them. "They're not trying to set up an alternative publication system," Samuelson said......"

A summary of this article could look like this:

Greg Miller of the Los Angeles Times reported on 11/9/99 that Judge Margaret Morrow's decision against Free Republic's claim of Fair Use in posting LAT/WP articles was questioned by a University of California Berkely copyright scholar. Judge Morrow is a recent Clinton appointee, i.e. new to the bench. Her appointment had been held up for years due to some Senator's concerns she might use the position for judicial activism. Since Free Republic was and is actively seeking the impeachment and removal of President Clinton, and since her appointment followed a number of favorable articles written by the LAT, motives are being questioned.

In both cases, the actual substance of the article would be clearly misrepresented…."

Also, using a link by itself causes the article to lose weight in relation to other articles which are more substantively disclosed. For instance, the above list of LAT/WP links to articles discussing the achievements of Judge Morrow are quite buried within this research notepad. Essentially their voice is recognized but not heard on this notepad/forum.

Freeper Roscoe reports 11/18/99 "…HR 1761, Copyright Damages Improvement Act (Rogan-Coble).

"In a case where the copyright owner demonstrates that the infringement was part of a repeated pattern or practice of infringement, the court may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $250,000 per work…" Summary: HR 1761, Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999.

WorldnetDaily 11/11/99 Jon Dougherty

".... A federal judge has ruled against the operator of a popular online conservative discussion forum, rejecting the owner's claim that reposting entire news stories constituted a "fair use" of copyrighted material. Judge Margaret Morrow of the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles rejected's request to dismiss the case, and said owner Jim Robinson was not protected under "fair use" provisions of existing copyright law when he copied and posted entire newspaper articles on his site......Robinson told WorldNetDaily he believes Morrow's decision is wrong and pledged to fight the ruling....... Robinson also said the judge ignored the fact that his website "only uses a small portion" of each newspaper every day, and said that by law users of copyrighted material are permitted to do that. "We use individual articles; however, they copyright the entire paper," he said....... Another aspect of the decision that Robinson disagreed with was the court's characterization of FreeRepublic as a commercial website. He told WorldNetDaily that Judge Morrow said because he received donations through his site, "that makes me a commercial enterprise, but that's completely false." In disputing Morrow's claim, Robinson said he has recently filed for non-profit status but that the paperwork has not yet been approved. "We have never operated the FreeRepublic as a commercial venture -- not at any time," he said. "She just ignored that. She said in the courtroom that the only reason for our existence was to raise donations."....."

".... Binyamin L. Jolkovsky, editor of another Internet news and commentary site, the Jewish World Review, sees merit in both sides of the case, but said he was more concerned about the loss of impact FreeRepublic could have as a "valuable and informative site" if Robinson loses his case. "For small sites like ours, it's somewhat damaging when somebody copies entire articles and reposts them elsewhere," he said, "especially when you're a site that is paying for content." On the other hand, he said, "they have been very kind to me. We've had a lot of their readers come to JWR." "I don't want to see FreeRepublic weakened because I think it's an absolutely amazing site," he said. "As something is breaking live, on television for example, site members (at the FreeRepublic) will immediately post a synopsis of the event, and that's just incredibly useful." Jolkovsky said the plaintiffs couldn't completely stop Robinson or his members from posting allowable amounts of copyrighted information......"

Salon 11/10/99 Mark Gimein

"…So I sat down to write about with the idea that what Robinson was doing was a flagrant abuse of the power that the Web puts in the hands of the independent publisher. I also had the idea that I would compare what Robinson was doing -- copying and illegally reprinting work that other people had written -- with the work of Robert Lane, the operator of Blue Oval News, a Web site devoted to news about Ford cars and the Ford Motor Co……Except that I didn't count on one thing. While a judge had upheld Lane's right to publish stories based on internal Ford documents, she prohibited him from publishing the documents themselves. Lane has since had to remove Ford's documents from his site. Without them, his investigation loses a surprising amount of its edge. Investigative stories, to be effective, need to give readers a lot of information. It is important to include as much documentation as possible so that readers know that they are getting the full story and nothing is being taken out of context. When I read an investigative piece like Lane's story about Ford's emission problems, I want to see the documents. Unfortunately, however, I can't, because Ford has used the copyright law as a club to prevent Lane from publishing them….. So Ford is using copyright law for one purpose only: to minimize bad press….."

"…That story should give the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times some pause, and should make media organizations think seriously about the purposes of copyright law…. It is upsetting that the same principles that can be used to protect the rights of writers and publishers to their hard-earned work can be used by a big corporation to draw a veil over its mismanagement. That, however, is exactly the case. …….But the very same newspapers [WP/LAT] also will have an interest in making sure that the copyright laws are not used as a club against their own investigative reporting….." via WND 11/12/99 Justin Raimondo

"…The idea that a posting site violates the copyright laws involves a complete misunderstanding of the technology. For in posting an article the site is not redistributing it, or reselling it, or republishing it, or even making multiple copies of it – the most accurate analogy is that it is being read aloud, like Rush Limbaugh sometimes likes to read entire newspaper articles over the air, as a take-off point for his own commentary. And this is very much the style of Free Republic, which after all has its roots in talk radio….Now there can be little doubt about the political motivation behind this legal persecution: Judge Morrow has a record as one of the most liberal of a whole platoon of Clinton appointees, as Senator Inhofe and others pointed out on the Senate floor……This case has to be political persecution – for it is obvious to any reasonable person that posting a news article on Free Republic or any other posting site is no more a copyright "infringement" than borrowing a copy of the Los Angeles Times or the Washington Post and engaging in a discussion about it with a friend over a cup of coffee. If posting an article on a website is a crime, then all you book-borrowers out there (and you know who you are) will soon find yourselves in the slammer, where you belong….."

"…Key to Judge Morrow's rejection of the "fair use" argument made by the defense was her argument that this did not apply, since the posting did not "transform" the original text and make it into something entirely new – some articles, she noted, were posted with little or no commentary. Many items are posted that are simply not worth commenting on: so what? But when an article inspires a long and contentious thread – or perhaps, in some cases, even a long and thoughtful one – then the original text is in truth transformed by the commentary. It is impossible for me to read one of my own columns posted on Free Republic without seeing the text in a new light, and I am proud of the extent and thoughtfulness of some of the threads my pieces have provoked, and deeply flattered (writers are so easy to flatter!) by all the attention. And that is what really grates on the nerves about the Gimein article – all this posing as the great defender of writer's rights! What a crock! As if the writer and his readers could possibly be at such cross-purposes. No, this has nothing to do with "writer's rights," and everything to do with the alleged "right" of our corporate elite to control all political discussion in this country and clamp down on the Internet….."

"…Where are all the civil libertarians? The ACLU seems to be missing in action – perhaps they're too busy trying to free convicted (and self-admitted) murderer Mumia abu Jamal to notice that the Corporate Elite/Big Government alliance is commandeering the Internet…… Where are the presidential candidates on this question? ……Congress has so far ignored the protests of conservatives who say that the IRS has been harassing, which was forced to go commercial as a result: will they stand by and let the Left make a martyr out of Jim Robinson? It's an outrage……. Today it is Jim Robinson – tomorrow the corporate oligarchs will lay claim to the exclusive right to direct traffic to their own sites, forbidding the posting of any links without permission or without paying a fee – on the grounds that they lose money because the advertising they cram the front pages of their ill-constructed and graphic-heavy websites with will never be seen by readers. The Media Monopolists are capable of anything – and the case of Jim Robinson is the proof of it. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand, before it's too late….."

"….. This legal lynching must be stopped. We hear all this guff about how "free" the Internet is supposed to be, and everybody holds endless conferences about it and puts blue "free speech" ribbons all over their sites - well, now is the time to put up or shut up. This is nothing but political persecution masquerading as a civil trial: what is at stake here is not just the fate of Free Republic, but nothing less than the future of free and open discussion on the Internet. Please contact Free Republic for information on how to contribute to their legal defense - and spread the word. Today it is Jim Robinson - tomorrow the corporate oligarchs will lay claim to the exclusive right to direct traffic to their own sites, forbidding the posting of any links without permission or without paying a fee - on the grounds that they lose money because the advertising they cram the front pages of their ill-constructed and graphic-heavy websites with will never be seen by readers. The Media Monopolists are capable of anything - and the case of Jim Robinson is the proof of it. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand, before it's too late….."

Heads Up 11/14/99 Doug Fiedor

"…..However, as Americans, it is our right, even our duty, to discuss the politics of the day. Many media outlets provide their "news" free to readers on the Internet, so there seems to be little problem with copying an occasional article for discussion elsewhere. The analogy is similar to cutting an article out of a paper newspaper for display somewhere -- the Founding Fathers used the original Liberty Tree. The actual problem resulted when "non-leftist liberal" folks started discussing the "news" and comparing the accuracy of what was reported (and which things were left out) with what had actually happened. Major discrepancies were sometimes identified in important news accounts -- especially those stories involving the many Clinton administration wrongdoings. At times, a newspaper's deliberate spin on the news was also exposed….."

"……The liberal newspapers were not happy with the critical reviews by these "non-journalist" politically astute people -- and Free Republic has many active politically perceptive members. So, the huge media corporations are spending big bucks to teach little Free Republic a lesson. In short, they plan to make an example of Jim Robinson, the owner of the Free Republic site….."

JimRob COMMENTS ON THE TRIAL "…..The Judge had her 28 page tentative ruling all neatly typed and photocopied and ready for delivery as we set foot in her courtroom. She gave our legal team five minutes to digest it and about as much time for arguing our side of the story before ruling [on] 3 [issues] to 1 for plaintiffs. "I'll give you one minute, Mr. Buckley, and I mean one minute to summarize."…… Judge Morrow claims that Free Republic is commercial because we ask for donations. Hah! So do the Boy Scouts and the Red Cross. As far as that goes, so does Bill Clinton. Does that make them commercial? …."

….She admits that the donations are to sustain our operations, but then goes on to say that the very reason for Free Republic's existence is to raise those donations. Baloney! The reason for Free Republic was (which can be historically proven) and still is, to see Bill Clinton impeached and run out of government, and to see corruption (liberal activist judges doing favors for liberal newspapers and presidents, for example) and illegal government expansion rooted out as well. Which leads us to the fact that Judge Morrow, herself, was appointed by Clinton, and then her confirmation was held up by the Senate for two years. The Los Angeles Times published many, many editorials during that time calling for the Senate to confirm her, which they eventually (and now proven wrongfully) did. It looks to me like Morrow owes her job to the plaintiffs. No possibility for bias or political pay back here, I suppose. . ." .

…She gives us the fact that the law allows us to use the material because of it's nature: News and factual based content. Although we are wondering why she didn't rule the content put out by plaintiffs as works of fiction. She also ruled against us on transformation. And that's kind of strange being as how we transform the work immediately when we post it. When posted to Free Republic, it transforms from a fictional accounting of a corrupt event to a public service corruption expose', complete with our own HTML code and our reply button and open invitation for public comment, discussion and critique. Let's see the Times place such a button and invitation on their own news articles for public critique. I'll bet the concept wouldn't last a week. The Times can't handle the truth….."

The New York Times 11/15/99 Christian Berthelsen

"…FreeRepublic's owners asserted they have a "fair use" and First Amendment right to post the articles because the issues covered in the stories -- and sometimes the stories themselves -- become the subject of written debate and criticism on the site. They also contended that the site had increased Web traffic to the Post and the Times, citing testimony from a witness who determined that FreeRepublic was responsible for 20,000 so-called referral hits on the newspapers' Web sites each month…… It receives donations from users to keep it running, though Jim Robinson, one of the owners, insisted there were no profits…."

"….But in a tentative ruling, U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Morrow found that the solicitations, as well as advertisements for another business owned by Robinson, made the site a for-profit enterprise. Siding with the newspapers, Morrow rejected FreeRepublic's request to dismiss the suit. She found the site is commercial in nature, and she ruled that its effect on revenue to the newspapers' Web sites and the fact that many of the articles were reprinted in full undercut the fair-use argument….."We're using it to critique the government, and to critique the media itself, which is supposed to be a watchdog over the government," Robinson said. "So we feel we're an ideal case for fair use." Both parties are now awaiting a final ruling from the judge. Robinson said he would appeal….."


Freeper Clarity (counsel to Jim Robinson and Free Republic) 11/16/99

"….Most judges would welcome scrutiny of their possible bias since they take an oath to uphold the constitution and to administer justice fairly. The support given to Judge Morrow by The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times during her two year confirmation battle doesn't strike me in the least as an out of bounds topic. I think we'll get this ruling reversed on several substantive grounds and that her possible bias will not be an issue.

For example, her decison has a sweeping effect, putting the fair use defense out of our reach across the board with respect to every single article posted to Free Republic. But she rested her transformation refutation in part on her observation that some articles are posted with no initial comments appended. Accepting this distinction for argument's sake only, then we are left without the fair used defense even with respect to such articles that were posted with initial transforming comments. This is error on her part. She is going to have to make a fair use ruling on every single article individually, unless of course her ruling is reversed, which it will be.

Further, she has stretched the commecial versus non-comercial analysis far beyond its breaking point. The extremely limited commercial activity on FR is not what fulfills the objective of the site. It's the other way around.

Put differently, FR does not conduct its forum activities so that it can do commericial things. It has done (some) commercial things so that it can conduct its forum activities. Yet she has decided that the commercial activities define the site's character. It is unmistakeable error, and when her decision is reviewed by the Ninth Circuit, the appellate court is permitted to review de novo, meaning they can and will examine the underlying facts again to reach their own conclusions based on the evidence.

In the meanwhile, God bless free speech! …."



Washington Weekly 12/8/97

"….Jim Robinson who hosts the "Free Republic" web site received a number of cease and desist orders from mainstream media organizations last week. They all ask him to stop reposting their news content as well as framing content from their web sites on his web site. In addition to a public discussion forum where news stories are posted, Robinson's web site has a number of links to mainstream media organizations. When those links are followed, the content appears in a "frame" of Robinson's web page. "If 'Framing' is illegal, I'm guilty," Jim Robinson declares to the Washington Weekly. "But I'd like to see the regulations that prohibit it before they sentence me."

There is something odd about these cease and desist orders, which Robinson has shown to the Washington Weekly. They have similar wording and details, and three of the letters were sent on the same day, December 5. The timing and the language suggests that this was a concerted effort. Some person or group did the legal research on Robinson and his web site, uncovering all his past and present business affiliations, and distributed a legal brief to the news organizations Times Mirror, Dow Jones, Reuters and Washington Post.

Who might that person or group be? Well, there are three clues. First, we may look at which article is cited as the offending piece of evidence against Robinson. The first article cited, by the Washington Post, is the Sep. 12, 1997 "Intelligence Data Suggest Role in China Plot Senators Told," by Brian Duffy and Bob Woodward. The article focused on Chinese agent Ted Sioeng and his $250,000 donation to the Democrat Party and his meetings with Bill Clinton and Al Gore. This article, highly embarrassing to the White House, was ignored by the mainstream media but distributed widely on the Internet.

The second clue is that Jim Robinson says that his web site has been visited by White House computers from the domain. This fact is significant. It means that official White House computers were used by government employees to research Robinson's site.

The third clue is that a Clinton defender on November 16 posted a complaint on the Free Republic forum, asking that instead of reposting Washington Weekly articles in that forum, posters give a link to our web site instead. An odd complaint, given that our copyright notice contains a specific permission to repost. Odd indeed, unless that person was aware of the effort underway to stop exactly such reposting on the Free Republic web site. The identity of the poster is concealed, hidden behind the alias "serpenthead." Where have we heard that before? Serpenthead did not wish to reveal his identity to the Washington Weekly.

Now let us look at the claims of the "aggrieved." They charge that Robinson is guilty of commercial misappropriation, copyright and trademark infringement and unfair competition, among others. The first and last claims are ludicrous on their face. None of these organizations derive any significant revenue from their web sites, and the effect of reposting on this insignificant revenue is questionable. As for copyright infringement, Robinson cites the "fair use" exemption.

It is obvious that "framing" is only a pretext issue. Robinson says that he is happy to remove links to government propaganda sites such as the Los Angeles Times, originator of one of the cease and desist notices. The real issue is that citizens in public forums such as the Free Republic compare notes on various newspaper articles and compare them to their own research, memory, and information they gather from various other news outlets and books. That was never the intended use for those mainstream media stories, for it often reveals them as propaganda and disinformation. Such propaganda and disinformation are only effective against citizens who rely on one newspaper, such as the Los Angeles Times, as their only source of information. It allows the Los Angeles Times to control what information such readers receive, and what picture such readers form of government. It is such readers who then vote for Bill Clinton.

Why was Jim Robinson singled out? Perhaps because his Web site has become a focal point for White House opposition in recent months. Again and again we have heard of influential people making reference to it.

It is amazing that the Establishment should be so afraid of one citizen with an electronic printing press. Jim Robinson says that he and his wife are confined to wheelchairs. Less than $15,000 in revenue from a web site hosting venture is their only source of income. Yet his voluminous volunteer Web collection of the truth about the Clinton administration apparently is so subversive that he must be shut up for the government to survive. ….."


USA Today 4/10/00 Alcestis ''Cooky'' Oberg "…….. When Stephen King released his latest novel on the Internet last month, the publishing industry shuddered. When a Norwegian teenager unlocked the coding on a DVD movie and put it out on the Web in November, the multibillion-dollar movie industry quaked. When Napster, a software that lets people find and download music in cyberspace, made its debut, the music industry screamed. America is poised on the edge of a cultural revolution that threatens to leave Big Media in the dust in the next 20 years. In my view, it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people……… For decades, a handful of media companies have had a stranglehold on all American culture. To get a book published, authors had to go through agents, editors, executives, promotion departments and complex sales and distribution networks. In the end, they were lucky if they got any royalties out of it at all……..When the Founding Fathers spoke of the marketplace of ideas, I don't think they meant four music companies, seven publishers and five movie studios -- or the handful of people who make most cultural decisions for us. In fact, Thomas Jefferson's ''marketplace of ideas'' would be most purely embodied in the Internet, an arena in which every citizen -- regardless of money or connection -- could have a voice, a means of distributing his or her ideas and an avenue of contributing to the nation's culture……."

Tech Law Journal 4/11/00 David Carney "……. There is a final order on the fair use issue in the LA Times v. Free Republic case. I have a copy, which I received from plaintiffs' counsel. I have also spoken with plaintiffs' counsel, but not defendants' counsel, about the opinion. I would have put it on line by now, except that it is 40 pages long, and it is a very poor quality copy that cannot be scanned and converted into HTML with OCR software. I have already begun to retype it, but still have a long way to go. I have a rough draft of the first 15 pages in HTML now. I have 25 pages, and a lot of proof reading, and HTML editing (such as two way hyperlinking the footnotes) to go….. It is not a significant development. The order merely finalizes the tenative order issued several months ago (which I have put on line). It adds some additional citations, and elaboration, but follows the same step by step analysis of the fair use statute, and reaches the same conclusion. I have found no major departures from the tentative order. Also, it does not go into any issues not already addressed in the tentative opinion. It resolves the fair use defense, but otherwise, the case is still active, and ready to proceed to trial. ……"

AP 3/31/00 Pete Yost "….. A special panel is beginning an investigation of the chief federal judge in the District of Columbia because she assigned six Whitewater and campaign fund-raising prosecutions to Clinton appointees. Appeals Judge Stephen Williams chose four judges -- three Republicans and a Clinton appointee -- to help him delve into why Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson bypassed the computerized system of randomly assigning cases. In 1998 and 1999, Johnson sent six cases against presidential friends and Democratic fund-raisers to judges nominated by President Clinton. ……. But the court's 13-member Judicial Council reopened the complaint, filed by the conservative group Judicial Watch, after Rep. Howard Coble, R-N.C., presented additional evidence that Johnson also directed four other fund-raising cases to Clinton appointees. ……. Launching a full-scale judicial investigation of a judge is a serious step that court rules call a "last resort." ……Subpoena power is available to the panel and the investigation will almost certainly result in Johnson submitting to questioning under oath by her fellow judges, either in writing or in person. The five-member panel will turn over its findings to the Judicial Council of appeals court and district judges in Washington, which can issue a censure or reprimand or refer the matter to the Judicial Conference of the United States. …..

AP 3/31/00 Pete Yost "….. In letters to Coble and Judicial Watch on Tuesday, Williams named the four Washington-based judges he appointed to help him with the inquiry:

--Judith W. Rogers, a Clinton appointee on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
--A. Raymond Randolph, a Bush appointee on the appeals court.
--U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan, a Reagan appointee.
--U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, a Reagan appointee.

Ronald Rotunda, a former member of prosecutor Ken Starr's staff, criticized Johnson's special assignments this month in The Wall Street Journal. ……."There is a gradual accumulation of evidence ... that when criminal cases important to President Clinton were assigned and decided in the federal district court in Washington, D.C. ... politics controlled," Rotunda wrote. A written guide to federal courthouse rules in the District of Columbia states that when a complaint is made against a judge, "formal investigatory procedures are to be regarded as a last resort." The guide says the law is "better and more promptly served if an informal solution can be found that will correct the problem giving rise to a complaint." ….."

Law News Net 3/31/00 Brenda Sandburg "…….A Los Angeles federal judge ruled on Monday that hypertext linking from one Web site to another does not by itself constitute copyright infringement. In Ticketmaster Corp. v., 99-7654, Central District Court Judge Harry Hupp let stand Ticketmaster's claims of copyright infringement, unfair competition and false advertising against However, Hupp laid down legal boundaries within which Ticketmaster must prove its case and voiced support for the practice of hyperlinking. The ruling in the Ticketmaster case takes a step toward determining the legality of a fundamental practice on the Internet. ……." - news 4/19/00 ".......The inclusion of a copyrighted photograph in a book critical of nuclear energy was a fair use of the photograph, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York said April 6, granting summary judgment for the book's author and publisher (Baraban v. Time Warner Inc., S.D.N.Y., No. 99 Civ. 1569 (JSM), 4/6/00). ........The fair use doctrine, according to the opinion by Judge John S. Martin Jr., "was fashioned as a " guarantee of breathing space' within the confines of copyright that allows for new transformative works that further the public discourse and the free exchange of ideas in order to promote science and the arts." A non-exhaustive list of four factors is used to evaluate a fair use defense: (1) the purpose and character of the use; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. ......... Taken together, the court said, these four factors demonstrate that the inclusion of the picture in Celente's book constitutes a fair use. .......First, the defendants' use of the picture was clearly for purposes of criticism and comment, and thus fell squarely within the examples of fair use set forth in the preamble to 17 U.S.C. §107, the court found. And, while the nuclear energy industry took the brunt of Celente's criticism, the photograph was, at least in part, the target of his commentary. The picture was, the court said, "a work of political commentary," and the defendants could reproduce a portion of that commentary in order to respond to it. ......... Second, the photograph was a publicly released work, which qualified it for less protection against fair use than an unpublished work. And, though it might qualify for more protection as a "creative" work, that protection was diminished by its use in the "op-ad" for nuclear energy. Thus, the court said, the photograph's publication "as part of a commentary on an issue of public importance prevents the second factor from weighing decisively" in Celente's favor. ........Third, although the entire photograph was reproduced in the book, it was one-quarter of its original size and in black-and-white rather than in color. The photograph was essential to Celente's commentary on the ad campaign, the court found, and the book did not use any more of the photograph than was necessary to comment on it. ......Fourth, the court found it "unlikely" that its reproduction in the book would have any effect on the potential market for the photograph. "Furthermore, the idea that a thriving market for photographs of Louise Ihlenfeldt and her cow (however dramatically portrayed) actually exists is dubious to say the least." ......"

Los Angeles Daily News 5/13/00 Harrison Sheppard "……..It may look that way, with some of the most powerful players in Los Angeles - responsible for spending local tax dollars and overseeing local programs - at the federal courthouse, not the Civic Center. In a series of consent decrees in the past decade, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Los Angeles Unified School District, the Sheriff's Department and city Sanitation Bureau all have fallen under control of federal courts. The agreements significantly changed how these agencies operate, forced them to collectively spend billions of additional taxpayer dollars and diminished local government's authority. ………Now the Justice Department is seeking a consent decree for the Los Angeles Police Department to correct a long pattern of alleged civil rights abuses by officers. As a result, the city could have to surrender some control over the LAPD and be required to spend significant sums on specified programs. ….."

New Information:

LITT, Robert S. Partner Arnold and Porter Washington Office
M.A., 1973, Yale University
J.D., 1976, Yale Law School
B.A., 1971, Harvard College
Robert Litt is a partner in the law firm of Arnold & Porter, in Washington, D.C. He graduated from Harvard College in 1971, and received a Master of Arts from Yale University in 1973 and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1976. After graduation he clerked for the Hon. Edward Weinfeld in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Hon. Potter Stewart on the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Litt served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York from 1978 to 1984, prosecuting white collar, tax and racketeering cases, among others, and serving as Chief Appellate Attorney. He then joined the firm of Williams & Connolly in Washington D.C., where he was an associate and a partner handling a variety of civil and criminal litigation matters. In 1993, Mr. Litt became Special Advisor to the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs. From 1994 to 1997 he was Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division of the United States Department of Justice, and from 1997 to 1999 he was Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, with responsibility for law enforcement, national security and technology-related matters. ……."


Freeper Wallaby "…… Confirming Eroteme's timely response to your question: the announcement of Litt's departure from DOJ to Arnold and Porter appeared in The National Law Journal last December: …… LATERAL HIRES ... When submitting announcements, firms and individuals must make clear whether a new partner is from the associate class or is a lateral hire. For lateral hires, in-house moves and of counsel items, the immediately previous title and place of employment must be provided. ...Arnold & Porter (Washington, D.C.): Robert S. Litt, former principal associate deputy attorney general in the Department of Justice; Leonard H. Becker, former head of the Office of District of Columbia Bar Counsel; in London, Tim Frazer, former London-area practitioner and professor at Newcastle University. ("NAMES BEHIND THE NEWS; Pg. A18; The National Law Journal, December 6, 1999) ……"

Freeper Wallaby "…..He was with Williams & Connolly prior to coming to DoJ. Interesting that he didn't go back. Williams & Connolly Clinton Tie ……Washington powerhouse law firm represents Bill and Hillary Clinton in Starr's Whitewater probe. Most recent figures show the firm has billed the Clintons more than $2.8 million for its Whitewater work-with more than $2.2 million of that still unpaid. Former partner Robert Litt has been helping to run the Criminal Division in Clinton Justice Department, directing probe of Democratic National Committee fund raising from questionable foreign sources. ...Arnold & Porter Clinton Tie ……Blue-chip Washington firm has supplied a high-powered crew of Clintonites, including outgoing White House Counsel Jack Quinn, former Justice aide Irv Nathan, and top commodities regulator Brooksley Born. After Carville launched his anti-Starr campaign, Quinn joined in to question publicly the Whitewater prosecutors' impartiality, but studiously avoided mentioning the tobacco issue…….( "THE CLINTON CONNECTION WHEN IT COMES TO LAWYERS, TOBACCO AND THE PRESIDENT HAVE A LOT IN COMMON," MICHAEL ISIKOFF, Legal Times, January 20, 1997, Pg. 14) ….."

CBS /WND 6/22/00 "……Animal-rights activists know the name PETA is an acronym for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. But in cyberspace, the letters briefly stood for People Eating Tasty Animals. ……. From September 1995 to January 1996, a Maryland Internet entrepreneur used the Web address as the home page of the fictitious group. The site described itself as "a resource for those who enjoy eating meat, wearing fur and leather, hunting and the fruits of scientific research (and more!)." ……The animal-rights group wasn't laughing. They took Web site owner, Michael Doughney, to court and last week a federal judge ordered Doughney to relinquish the Web address to PETA and limit his use of domain names to those not "confusingly similar." ……… "He did a selfish and self-serving thing by trying to profit from the name of an organization that serves to help animals," Lisa Lange, spokeswoman for Norfolk-based PETA, said Tuesday………Doughney's attorney, G. Gervaise Davis, said he plans to appeal. He said Doughney was simply parodying PETA, which is protected speech under the First Amendment. "It's not a cybersquatting case at all," Davis said. "It simply presents a question: Can you use a trademark as a domain name for the purpose of creating a parody?" …….. Interestingly, PETA found itself on other side of a parody controversy earlier this year. In March, Mothers Against Drunk Driving protested PETA's "Got Beer?" parody of the "Got Milk?" ads, saying it encouraged underage drinking at colleges. ……"




The Moscow Times 6/23/00 Simon Saradzhyan "…..Federal troops have been withdrawing from Chechnya, which may leave the remaining units helpless to avert the seizures of cities by Chechen rebels. Totaling more than 100,000 servicemen at the height of the fighting early this year, the so-called grouping of federal forces has seen its personnel strength shrink to less than 50,000 and the cuts will continue, a senior commander said Thursday. Deputy commander in Chechnya, General Vyacheslav Borisov, told reporters outside Grozny that his forces consist of 48,598 servicemen, Itar-Tass said. The troops are armed with 202 tanks, 1,784 armored personnel carriers, and 723 cannons and mortars, he said. ……"



White House Press Office 6/22/00 William Clinton "……Statement by the Press Secretary The White House received the Independent Counsel's press release on the travel office matter this afternoon, a report that should officially end its investigation. After seven years and the expense of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, the Independent Counsel confirms what we have said all along; there is no evidence that the First Lady did anything wrong. …."




Russia Today 6/22/00 BBC "……Yakovlev said today that Russia is ready to react promptly if the USA withdraws from the ABM Treaty. If so, Moscow will break another treaty, that on the elimination of small and medium-range missiles, and deploy a unit of those missiles, which are cheaper and more mobile. Moscow still believes this can be avoided if Europe supports President Vladimir Putin's plan to set up a joint antimissile defense. Its main element, the S-400 "Triumph" air defense system, is now tested at the testing ground in Kapustin Yar. Petr Lyubimov has the details. …….The story began last winter. A prototype of the modern S-400 air defense system was shown to a select group of journalists who accompanied Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev on his visit to the testing ground. Actually, what they saw was not the complete system but some its elements installed on the famous S-300 system. After this everything remained under a veil of secrecy for months. But in April 2000 the Russian air force C-in-C, Gen Anatoliy Kornukov, told reporters that the system was being tested. ….."





Inside China Today 6/21/00 Damien Grammaticus "…….One of Hong Kong's senior pro-democracy figures has announced he is to leave politics, saying he's frustrated at the lack of progress towards democracy in the territory. Ronald Arculli is the third high-profile legislator in Hong Kong to say he won't seek re-election later this year. Announcing his decision to stand down from politics, Mr Arculli reportedly said he was frustrated with what he called the rule of one man, and not the rule of law. Mr Arculli is vice chairman of Hong Kong's Liberal party, which has strong links to the business community. He was appointed to the legislature 12 years ago, but says he won't stand in elections due in September. ……"



AP 6/21/00 Kathy Gannon "…….The devastating drought gripping Afghanistan is doing more than drying up food crops. Fewer fields are growing the beautiful, but deadly poppy flower that provides the opium for heroin. United Nations officials and farmers in Nangarhar, Kandahar and Helmand provinces, usually lush with crimson poppies, say the severe water shortage has left many poppy plants shriveled and valueless in the world's leading opium-producing country……"


RED FLAGS OF TREASON – Foreign Contributions

The New York Times 6/22/00 Don Van Natta Jr David Johnston "……The head of the Justice Department's campaign finance unit has recommended that Attorney General Janet Reno appoint a special counsel to investigate Vice President Al Gore's political fundraising activities during the 1996 Presidential campaign, government officials said today. ……. Mr. Gore has been questioned five times under oath, most recently in a four hour interview on April 18 at the Vice Presidential mansion. Prosecutors were dissatisfied with Mr. Gore's answers during the interview which was conducted in a more confrontational tone than previous sessions, the officials said. At times, Mr. Gore reacted angrily to the questions, which covered an array of issues related to the Vice President's fundraising. ……..So far, there is no indication that Ms. Reno has reached a decision on the matter. First in 1997 and then again 1998, Ms. Reno rejected the appointment of an independent counsel over the objections of F.B.I. Director Louis J. Freeh and some Justice Department officials…….."

The New York Times 6/22/00 Don Van Natta Jr David Johnston "……The investigation has remained a highly confidential matter within the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. F.B.I. Director Louis J. Freeh, who has long urged an independent investigation of Mr. Gore, has met privately in recent weeks with lawmakers in the House and Senate to avoid being asked to appear as a witness to discuss memorandum that he wrote several years ago about campaign finance issues. …….. Mr. Freeh, whose relationship with the White House has eroded badly over the issue, told the lawmakers that he did not want to be drawn into a public discussion of a pending inquiry and did not want give the White House further cause for complaint. F.B.I. officials would not comment on the matter today. ……."




AP 6/22/00 Pete Yost "……Independent Counsel Robert Ray said Thursday there is ``substantial evidence'' that Hillary Rodham Clinton played a role in White House travel office firings, contrary to her denials, but he won't bring charges against her. Ray said he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that ``any of Mrs. Clinton's statements and testimony regarding her involvement in the travel office firings were knowingly false.'' ……. The prosecutor also criticized the White House for what he called ``substantial resistance'' to providing ``relevant evidence'' to his investigators. ……. ``The White House asserted unfounded privileges that were later rejected in court,'' Ray said. ``White House officials also conducted inadequate searches for documents and failed to make timely production of documents, including relevant e-mails.''…….. Mrs. Clinton ``had discussions with Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster, Chief of Staff Mack McLarty and longtime friend and adviser Harry Thomason,'' he noted. Ray also said a direct telephone conversation she had with David Watkins, then the White House administration chief, ``ultimately influenced Watkins' decision to fire the travel office employees.'' …….``Nevertheless, the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that any of Mrs. Clinton's statements and testimony regarding her involvement in the travel office firings were knowingly false,'' he said. ……"

Judicial Watch 6/22/00 "……Independent Counsel Robert Ray used "flawed reasoning" in refusing to indict Hillary Rodham Clinton for lying about her role in the Travel Office firings of innocent career civil servants, announced the public interest law firm Judicial Watch, Inc. Judicial Watch represents Billy Ray Dale, the former head of the Travel Office………"The standard for indicting an individual is 'probable cause,' not 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' as Robert Ray implied in his statement on why he had declined to prosecute Hillary Clinton for lying about her role in Travelgate. It seems that Mr. Ray wasn't looking to the law in deciding whether to prosecute Hillary Clinton for the Travel Office outrage - but to politics," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton…….."


Corporate News Release 6/19/00 "…..Cendant Corporation (NYSE: CD) today announced that Cheryl D. Mills, senior vice president for corporate policy and public programming at Oxygen Media, has been elected to the Company's Board of Directors effective June 16, 2000. She replaces Leonard Schutzman who has retired as a director effective June 5, 2000. Cendant Chairman, President and CEO, Henry R. Silverman stated: "We are very pleased to welcome Cheryl Mills as a director...."



6/22/00 Independent Counsel Robert W. Ray issued the following statement today: "……. The Office of the Independent Counsel ("OIC") has concluded an investigation commonly known as the Travel Office matter. This matter concerned allegations that David Watkins, former Assistant to the President for Management and Administration, and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton made false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, committed perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1621, or obstructed justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, in connection with their statements and testimony concerning the May 19, 1993 firing of seven employees of the White House Travel Office. The Independent Counsel has concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Mr. Watkins or Mrs. Clinton made any knowingly false statements, committed perjury, or obstructed justice in this matter. ………. Similarly, with respect to Mrs. Clinton, there was substantial evidence that she had a "role" in the decision to fire the Travel Office employees. She had discussions with Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster, Chief of Staff Mack McLarty, and longtime friend and advisor Harry Thomason, and one direct telephone conversation with David Watkins (whose responsibilities included oversight and management of the Travel Office) in which she expressed her "concerns" regarding the Travel Office. These individuals discussed her concerns among themselves, which produced a momentum to take immediate action. Thus, Mrs. Clinton's concerns ultimately influenced Watkins's decision to fire the Travel Office employees. ………. Nevertheless, the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that any of Mrs. Clinton's statements and testimony regarding her involvement in the Travel Office firings were knowingly false. Accordingly, the Independent Counsel has declined prosecution of Mrs. Clinton as well. ……"



APBNews and Newsbytes 6/22/00 Dick Kelsey "……The site's successful fight to post the judges' records on the Internet won an honorable mention from the National Press Club, which also named the top news Website - the "best example among the entries of how a site can be of use both to reporters and to the public at large," said Maureen Groppe, chairwoman of the National Press Club's Awards Committee. News of the awards came just days after announced it was out of cash and fired 140 employees. ……..This week the site said several employees were being paid while the company negotiated with potential investors. last Tuesday said it was on the verge of turning off the lights and sending everyone home for good after talks with a prospective investor ended unsuccessfully. ……."

APBNews 6/22/00 Kenneth Pringle "……The financial disclosure records of the Supreme Court justices and more than 800 other federal judges were delivered to today, ending a nine-month stalemate in which the judiciary had refused to release the public information. plans to post the documents -- which have been newly redacted for publication on the Internet -- on its Web site, beginning with those of the Supreme Court justices……."

WASHINGTON TIMES 7/6/00 Jerry Seper "….A top Justice Department official described as a Democratic Party loyalist twice recommended in 1998 that an independent counsel be named to investigate whether Vice President Al Gore lied about his campaign-finance activities. Robert S. Litt, who serves as the department's principal associate deputy attorney general, said in September and November 1998 memos that he was "not persuaded" that Mr. Gore had not lied to FBI agents in denying that he illegally solicited "hard money" donations for the Democratic National Committee……."One could infer that Gore knew what he claimed he did not know; that the [DNC's] media campaign was paid for, in part, with hard money," Mr. Litt said in a Nov. 22, 1998, memo. "Gore was unquestionably present at a meeting at which it appears the hard-money component to the media campaign was discussed. "In addition, he was sent a large number of memos which made reference to the same topic," he said…….Mr. Litt's memos came in the wake of similar calls for an outside counsel by former Justice Department campaign-finance task force chief Charles G. LaBella and FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, who said there was clear and convincing evidence an independent counsel investigation of Mr. Gore was warranted……..Known as a certified "friend of Bill" and former law partner of David E. Kendall, President Clinton's personal attorney, Mr. Litt has been at the Justice Department in Washington since 1994. Department officials said numerous analyses he has conducted on independent counsel matters have never been questioned as politically motivated……"


Editor &Publisher 8/10/00 "....., a San Diego-based wireless information provider, has been hit with a lawsuit from The New York Times Co., Washington Post Co., Gannett Co. Inc., and CNN, the Los Angeles Times reports. ....... The media companies filed the suit on June 28 in New York's federal court, alleging that pulls content from the companies' Web sites and distributes it to mobile phones. The suit says that is infringing on copyrights and trademarks as well as providing false advertising and unfairly competing against the companies' own Web sites. ...... Founder and CEO Yuval Golan told the L.A. Times that is justified in taking information for limited-display devices. He added that he's not taking any money for distribution of the media sites' content. is available only in California to customers of Pacific Bell's wireless network. Pacific Bell is the only wireless network in the U.S. that has GSM (global system for mobile communications) capability, a wireless standard predominant in Europe. ....."

Los Angeles Times 8/2/00 Jim Robinson ---> This just in from Free Republic's you're not gonna believe this department: The LA Times says copyright law can't stop technology: if the people want file sharing, then so be it. "………. From the days of player pianos to radio and now the Internet, copyright holders--those artists and others who produce creative works--have looked on new technology as a natural enemy. They have confronted the source of unauthorized copying and tried to litigate or legislate it out of existence. The recording industry's lawsuit against Napster, the San Mateo-based online music swap meet, is no exception. The industry may succeed in putting Napster out of business, but it will not erase the technology that Napster has made so popular. As is always the case, copyright owners and the new technology will have to learn to live with one another, and that's where their energies should be directed. ….."

Los Angeles Times 8/1/00 Stuart Biegel Jim Robinson ---> This just in from Free Republic's you're not gonna believe this department: The LA Times says copyright law can't stop technology: if the people want file sharing, then so be it. "……..While it is now possible that the Napster lawsuit will lead to a landmark decision at the U.S. Supreme Court level, the specific legal issues raised by the widespread sharing of MP3 music files are only the beginning……… The resistance to control embodied in a technology of unprecedented speed, scale and anonymity has been well-documented. In addition, file-sharing that occurs simultaneously cannot easily be halted. ……… The limits of our legal system have long been recognized. Many scholars have noted, for example, that the system is often based on an implicit social contract, that it works better in some areas than in others, and that it is less effective in complex territory with many variables. In addition, there are obvious practical limits inherent in any effort to bring everything and everyone under control. ……"

Reuters 8/7/00 "….The family of the late American rock legend Jimi Hendrix has won a case at an international panel to evict the holder of the Internet address, U.N. arbitrators said Monday. The family of the guitar genius, who died in 1970, filed the case in May at the Geneva-based World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) against American Denny Hammerton of Minneola, Florida, who had been the first to register the address as an Internet domain. WIPO, which runs an arbitration system that evicts cybersquatters or net users who register famous names in the hope of making a quick buck, said the site name had been registered in bad faith and ordered Hammerton to transfer ownership of it to Hendrix's family. The Internet address is confusingly similar to the name Jimi Hendrix whose common law and registered trademark rights are owned by the late guitarist's family, and the holder of the site failed to prove any legitimate interest in it, WIPO ruled. ….."

Toronto Globe and Mail 7/29/00 Margaret Wente "……If you want to understand why the mighty infotainment conglomerates are all washed up, dial up yesterday's Globe and read a piece by Thalia Kapica. She's a typical smart Grade 10 kid. Unlike you, she is fluent in the language of ICQ, JPEG and MP3s. She has 254 songs in her personal library and she can probably get another 254 tomorrow, even if Napster had not been given a temporary reprieve from a court order to shut down by this morning. Here's her verdict on the campaign against Napster: "Slightly ridiculous."…….. I doubt that Thalia gives two hoots for the Digital Millennium Copyright Agreement, the World Intellectual Property Organization, the Copyright Act, or any of the other safeguards invoked by the Record Industry Association of America. I doubt she regards herself as a digital outlaw. And I'm fairly sure that neither punishment nor an industry re-education campaign will change her attitude. D'oh. The grownups don't have a clue……."

Toronto Globe and Mail 7/29/00 Margaret Wente "……They are fighting to hang on to a world where information was treated as hard goods, rather than expression; as property, rather than as relationships. Property law simply doesn't work in the information age. But what about the artists? Don't they deserve to get paid? Doesn't Metallica (which sings that society is rotten, but then showed up in the U.S. Congress to plead for its property rights) have a point?……."People talk about the death of music," says Mr. Barlow. "So how do they explain Bach, Beethoven, Mozart?" They somehow managed to survive without record company executives. In any event, he figures the real music thieves are the entertainment cartels. "Consider what the record industry has done to musicians throughout its existence," he says. "Less than 4 per cent goes back in royalties. That's piracy."......"

Freeper Glenn 7/25/00 email "…. PWAC-BULLETIN July 25, 2000 00-29 ……As you may or may not know, publisher Steven Brill recently launched a new online database site at …….In the short time that the site has been up, there have been numerous complaints by writers (including some Canadian ones) who have found their work illegally posted there. As a result, the U.S. National Writers Union has arranged a meeting with Steven Brill on July 25 (today) to discuss how Brill intends to address copyright violations against its members. At PWAC's request, the Union has also agreed to represent the concerns of PWAC and affected Canadian writers at that meeting. …..We urge you to search the "Contentville" site ( as soon as possible, and let the PWAC National Office know right away if any work of yours appears there without your permission. ……Please send this information to, and type "CONTENTVILLE" in the "subject" line of your email. ….."

CNET News 7/25/00 John Borland "….. As Hollywood and record companies go all-out to protect their copyrights online, they've run up against one of the Web's most hallowed traditions: the untrammeled ability to link to anything anywhere on the Net. A half-dozen high-profile legal cases revolve around the legality of links, as entertainment companies try to shutter Web sites or services they say are helping point people to illicit versions of songs and movies. …….Two of these cases are making headlines this week: Napster meets the record industry in court, and hacker publication 2600 Enterprises finishes defending itself in court against the movie studios. In each case, the industry is trying to win a ruling to pull links it says illegally contribute to online violations of copyrights, a legal step that courts have taken only rarely. As such, these cases hold the potential to put the brakes on the anything-goes nature of linking on the Web, free-speech advocates warn. ……"

CNET News 7/25/00 John Borland "….. The ability to link on the Web is largely taken for granted. Most mainstream publications--CNET included--routinely provide links to other sites without fear of being held liable for violating those other sites' copyrights. Throughout the medium's short history there have been sporadic attempts to rein in that freedom. Many of these have seen one publication sue another for using links to their articles as inducement to come to the front page of a less popular site. A string of cases has seen Ticketmaster sue rivals for linking to ticket-buying pages deep within the Web sites--so-called deep linking--thereby allowing customers to skip earlier pages with ads and sponsorships. Most of these cases have been settled out of court, leaving no usable legal precedent. In Ticketmaster's recent case against, a California court ruled initially that linking alone could not be illegal, but that decision has yet to be finalized. The one glaring exception to the rule has been a Dutch court, which ruled a year ago that links to Church of Scientology documents on the Web had to be taken down. The links alone, the judge said, contributed to a violation of the Church of Scientology's copyrights. That decision was binding only for courts in Holland. ……."

CNET News 7/25/00 John Borland "…..Many legal experts, including UCLA's Volokh, agree. A judge's decision could be drawn narrowly enough that a company such as Napster could be held responsible for contributing to copyright infringement without setting a broad precedent that links to copyrighted material are themselves illegal, they say. ……. MP3Board contests this notion. If the links it turns up as a search engine are illegal, then so could be the links turned up by a Yahoo or an AltaVista, company representatives argue……… Allies have in some cases come from the traditional media. The New York Times Co. has supported 2600 Enterprises' right to link to the contested DeCSS software, noting that it, too, provided links to the controversial code. "(Blocking) these links would be an unprecedented impingement of first amendment rights," the EFF's Gross said. "This would be unprecedented in traditional media." ….."

The Wall Street Journal 7/31/00 Paul Kedrosky "…..An appeals court has stayed a federal judge's ordering shutting down Napster. Too bad. I would happily flip the switch myself. ……The Internet has assuredly changed things. It has made innocent, college-style theft possible on a global scale. ……Let's be blunt: Napster-style file-sharing is theft. But for some reason commentators don't see it that way. Instead, we hear all sorts of tripe about waves of change, the inevitability of the Internet, and so on. Theft ends up sounding somehow okay. Commentators are falling all over themselves saying that the forces Napster has set loose cannot be stopped. ………. Technologists disavow any responsibility for their electronic fencing ring. Information, they say, wants to be free. Not their own, of course, but other people's. As a recent article in this newspaper pointed out, Napster, the company, gets agitated in a hurry when people start sharing its assets, from logos to its underlying file structures. Share? Sure, but not us! ……."

The Los Angeles Times 7/30/00 Wayne Overbeck "…….....Congress adopted the first Copyright Act in 1790, establishing a 14-year copyright term. In a political compromise, renewals for another 14 years were authorized. By 1909, the term doubled to 28 years, renewable for a second 28 years. In 1976, the term grew again: This time, to the author's life plus 50 years and to 75 years for "works made for hire." In 1998, in the same package of bills as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the "DMCA" on which Patel based her injunction against Napster), Congress added another 20 years to copyright terms. …….Now many copyrights last for 95 years. On unpublished works, the term is even longer--up to 120 years. That's a "limited time"? ……"

The Los Angeles Times 7/30/00 Wayne Overbeck "…….....In reality, copyright law and related legal concepts have been misused more than once to hamper "progress of science and useful arts." ….History offers other notable examples, among them, an attempt by newspaper publishers to stifle radio news in the 1930s, and the software industry's attempts to abrogate the First Sale Doctrine, which allows the purchaser of a copyrighted work to resell it or donate it to a library without paying additional royalties. ......... In fact, if libraries were a recent invention, wouldn't they be a prime target of copyright infringement lawsuits? Don't they enable millions of people to share copyrighted materials instead of purchasing their own individual copies? ……."

CNN 7/28/00 Greg Lefevre, Casey Wian, Associated Press , Reuters "…….The recording industry filed its response Friday to Napster Inc.'s request for a federal appeals court to block a lower court order that would effectively shut down the wildly popular Internet music-swapping site by 3 a.m. Saturday EDT……..I its response filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the industry said Napster's claim that the court order would put it out of business are untrue and legally irrelevant. There was no word on when the appeals court will rule on Napster's appeal - or if it will do so at all. …… Following Wednesday's order, Napster CEO Hank Barry gave a statement via Web cast on Napster's Web site. "Although we strongly and firmly disagree with the judge's decision, we respect and understand the basis for it and we plan to comply," Napster CEO Hank Barry said Wednesday on the Napster Web site. "We'll fight this in a variety of ways to keep the Napster community growing and strong."……U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel said Napster "is enjoined from causing, assisting, facilitating, copying, or otherwise distributing all copyrighted songs or musical compositions."……" [Napster prevailed] 7/28/00 Owen S Good AP "…..The music industry was in an uproar. In parlors and saloons across the country, people loaded cylinders into player pianos, pumped the pedals, and out came the tunes, without a penny paid to the composers or the sheet music publishers. Something, they screamed, had to be done. The year was 1908. It was, in a sense, the Ragtime Napster. ….."

Free Republic 7/28/00 Jim Robinson "…… Just got off the phone with Brian. The hearing went pretty much exactly as we expected. We are trying to expedite getting our case to appeals in the 9th Circuit Court. We are therefore making certain stipulations and the Plaintiffs and the Court are cooperating. ……. There were at least a couple motions made by both sides. And if I understood what Brian said, I believe ours were granted and theirs were denied. Brian will fill us in on the details later this afternoon. ……..One detail I do remember is that the Court explicitly refused to order even a temporary injunction against FR much less the permanent injunction sought by the Plaintiffs. However, in order to move this thing along, and to stay above board we have voluntarily offered to the Court that we will not post full text articles from the Times and the Post, and that we will remove our existing Times and Post archives from public access. We do not want to have an expensive and time consuming trial when the Court has already and wrongly disallowed our primary fair use defense. Our desire is to go straight to appeals. We have asked the Judge to allow us to negotiate terms of any damages with the Plaintiffs to move the case out of her Court and into the appeals process. ….."

New York Times 7/28/00 Amy Harmon "…..It was around 8 p.m. on Wednesday when Joe Frost heard that a federal judge had issued an order that effectively shut down Napster. By 11 p.m., he had linked his computer to one of several underground networks that allow users to do the same thing as the popular Internet music-swapping service does, only without providing a central target. Like many of Napster's millions of users, Mr. Frost, a 23-year-old systems administrator in San Francisco, did not see the court's ruling as a victory for copyright law or a defeat for a particular company. He saw it as a call to arms. "I wanted to get more involved in keeping free music distribution alive," Mr. Frost said. …….And since many of the alternatives are decentralized and noncommercial, they are likely to be much harder for the recording industry to attack. ……"

San Jose Mercury News 8/17/00 Dan Gillmor "……TWO years ago, Congress passed a law called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Many people warned correctly that this legislation was an abandonment of constitutional principles and the public interest -- a grossly unbalanced law that would give the owners of intellectual property vast new authority, simultaneously shredding users' rights. The latest fallout from Congress' sellout rained down Thursday in New York. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, spewing contempt for the defendants in a closely watched case, ruled that it was not only illegal for a Web site to post software code that allowed people to view DVD movies on non-authorized devices, but that it was also illegal even to post a hyperlink to the code on someone else's computer. …….. The New York decision comes on the heels of a similar slam in San Francisco several weeks ago against the Napster file-sharing program. The cases differ in some key respects, but there are common messages. One, as noted, is the primacy of intellectual property owners over users. …….Another, which neither the law nor the entertainment barons seem ready to discuss, much less acknowledge, is that technology will ultimately make the argument moot. No one defends piracy. But the question is no longer whether this technology will force intellectual property owners to find new ways to do business. It's whether they'll do so before they go out of business…….."

Scientific American 9/15/00 W Wayt Gibbs "……In the centuries-long struggle to decide what people may say without fear of prosecution, almost all the big decisions have been made by constitution writers, judges and politicians. When things work properly, these players balance one another out and change the limits of free speech only slowly and after much debate. Inventors have played an occasional starring role, too, Gutenberg being the archetype. But with the rise of the Internet, a certain class of inventors--computer scientists--has asserted its own special power to determine the boundaries of permissible speech. Unlike the leaders of governments, programmers release the new methods that they devise for sharing information globally, quickly and often with little thought to the consequences. ……… Consider Publius, a censor-resistant Web publishing system described in mid-August at a computer security conference in Denver. Engineers at the conference greeted the invention warmly, presenting to its creators--Marc E. Waldman, a Ph.D. student at New York University, and Aviel D. Rubin and Lorrie F. Cranor of AT&T Labs-Research--the award for best paper. Publius is indeed an impressive technical achievement: a tiny little program that, once widely installed, allows almost any computer user to publish a document on the Web in such a way that for all practical purposes it cannot be altered or removed without the author's consent, even by an incensed government. In fact, authors can post files to Publius that even they themselves cannot delete. Yet it is quite simple for any Web surfer anywhere to view files published this way. ……"

The Register 9/9/00 Thomas Greene "…….The Clinton Administration has seen fit to submit a brief of amici curiae to the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals arguing that the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 does not apply to Napster's appeal of a copyright infringement suit brought by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) back in December. The brief is such a classic tour de force of Clintonesque semantic hair-splitting, fraudulent weasel-wording, and spineless, opportunistic spin that one may feel the need to bathe after reading it. ……… The Home Recording Act, we are told, "identifies four specific kinds of products whose manufacture, distribution, and non-commercial use Congress wished to shield from actions for copyright infringement. Those products are 'a digital audio recording device; a digital audio recording medium; an analogue recording device; or an analogue recording medium.'" The White House legal eagles therefore contradict Napster's argument that PCs should be considered home recording devices eligible for protection under the Act. ……"


Los Angeles Times 8/21/00 Jeremy Rifkin "....... At the heart of the controversy is a clash that goes far beyond the music industry. What we're witnessing is the beginning of an epic struggle between two great economic systems. On one side lies the old market-based economy, made up of sellers and buyers. On the other side lies the new network-based economy, made up of servers and clients. In markets, the parties exchange property. In networks, the parties share access to services and experiences. ........ The new information and telecommunications technologies, e-commerce and globalization are making possible a new economic era as different from market capitalism as the latter is from mercantilism. In the new century, markets are slowly yielding to network ways of doing business, with profound implications for the future of society. By the middle decades of the 21st century, markets, the hallmark of conventional capitalism, will have largely disappeared, replaced by a new kind of economic system based on network relationships, 24/7 contractual arrangements and access rights. ......"

Ether Zone 10/9/00 A C Kleinheider "…….. Most everyone is familiar with the name of Lucianne Goldberg, Linda Tripp's prospective book agent, whose legacy will include the addition of the surname Lewinsky to the American lexicon as a synonym for oral sex. Goldberg, like everyone these days, has a website, While a bit glossier, it is similar in concept to Free Republic . These kinds of sites are basically bulletin boards where folks are invited to post and comment on articles of interest. The ensuing back and forth results in "threads" that are often quite long. These threads become conversations and the bulletin boards themselves become virtual communities. Unfortunately, there has been trouble in the neighborhood. Unlike the basically lassiez-faire attitude Free Republic has towards its posters, Ms. Goldberg and her acolytes often control their site with a heavy hand which twice resulted in mutiny ('s Justin Raimondo outlines the situation well in a recent column ). It is the latest move of's heavy hand that has brought me to the keyboard on this particular occasion.

NY Post 10/9/00 Seth Gitell "……. Last week, in her Shortcuts column, Ms. Goldberg declared that Ether Zone and Enter Stage Right would no longer be acceptable source material for posts. These sites were persona non grata. Why no room at the inn for these hungry young conservative webzines? ………I decided to inquire further. I asked whether sites such as American Partisan , Spintech , Sierratimes and LewRockwell would be included under the new policy. I asked if WorldNetDaily, the premier conservative Internet newspaper, linked to columns on these sites would they then rise to the new level of "newsworthiness" established by My query precipitated the following statement, "These are not news sites and just being posted on WND or any other site doesn't make them news." Well... I suppose sites like Ether Zone and ESR are not news organizations per se (although they do provide links to the important events of the day) but neither is National Review Online or WSJ's Opinion Journal , both of which are frequent fodder for posts at The response to that assertion was: "Purely editorial caprice. We publish what we feel our readers want to read. We get an enormous amount of feedback and our editorial decisions are based on those and our own preferences." This is certainly a valid position. is a registered domain name with privately funded bandwidth and they may post pictures of monkeys wearing cute little ballerina outfits if their heart desires……

Associated Press 9/30/00"…… The House on Tuesday passed a bill that would restore musicians' ability to reclaim ownership of their old recordings from record labels. Lawmakers last year backed a four-line copyright law amendment, which altered a law that gave artists ownership of their "sound recordings" 35 years after their debut. After protests from musicians, the House passed a bill by voice vote returning the law to its former state Tuesday. …… "This is a great day for musicians who write their own music," said Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. The Senate has not yet considered the bill. ……. The furor started last year when a House panel approved the amendment to copyright law that had been slipped into a bill without a public hearing. It said that music and other "sound recordings" were hired work, meaning that the performer had no right to reclaim ownership from his or her record label. The change was made without a hearing or public debate because House and Senate staffers, along with the U.S. Copyright Office, believed that it simply coded into law what had become a common practice. ……."

Washington Times 11/7/00 Frank J Murray "..... The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to explore an Internet copyright issue involving whether media companies or free-lance writers control rights to post published articles in computer databases. The 1993 case pits six free-lancers led by Jonathan Tasini, president of the National Writers Union, against the New York Times, Newsday, Sports Illustrated, Lexis/Nexis and University Microfilms. At issue is the extent to which such electronic reuse can be defined as a "revision" of the original publication, which the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals defined as "later editions of a particular issue of a periodical, such as the final edition of a newspaper." The Copyright Act says that newspapers and magazines require separate permission to republish articles beyond such a "revision.".......The appeals court reversed a trial judge's decision for the companies, which argue the order would require destroying decades of articles. Their attorney, Harvard professor Laurence Tribe, said that would be "disastrous for the nation's libraries, academic institutions and publishers."......"

Jon E. Dougherty 11/5/ ".... A U.S. Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court ruling that banned Republican congressional candidate Bill Federer of St. Louis from airing political ads showing his opponent promising a gay and lesbian group that he would -- as majority leader in a Democrat-controlled House -- work to pass legislation important to them. ........ The ads, produced by Federer's campaign and first aired Oct. 24, were ordered off the air by U.S. District Judge Charles A. Shaw Oct. 27 after the campaign of Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., complained to local television stations that an ad featured video footage owned by C-SPAN that was not authorized for use. ....... In a letter to Tom Tipton, the general manager of KDNL-TV, Kevin Gunn of the Gephardt campaign wrote that the Federer ads constituted "the use of unauthorized footage" and contained "audio and video from C-SPAN as well as use of their logo ......."

Jon E. Dougherty 11/5/ ".... Officials at C-SPAN, said Tom Federer -- a campaign spokesman -- faxed a warning to the Federer campaign within a day after the ad first aired, threatening legal action if campaign officials did not have it pulled. ........ But on Thursday, the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's ruling, supporting the Federer campaign's claims that barring use of C-SPAN video footage was a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech. ..... "Such use of this footage is authorized under the fair-use doctrine and is completely permissible as political speech fully protected by the First Amendment," a statement released yesterday by the Federer campaign said. ...... '

Jon E. Dougherty 11/5/ ".... "C-SPAN wanted special treatment exempting its videos from any political use whatsoever," said Bryan J. Brown, litigation counsel for the American Family Association's Center for Law and Policy, which handled the Federer campaign's case. ....... To disallow the use "would have effectively made C-SPAN not a mere reporter of the news, but the owner of the news," he said. ......"

Connectthedots 10/30/00 to Clarity "…..It appears to me that the WP's inability to define "fair use" will be fatal on appeal. I would love to be a judge on this panel. The WP is claiming FR is violating the fair use doctrine, so how can FR be violating something they can't even define, yet Morrow ruled that it could not be used as an affirmative defense, but pending appeal WP has said FR can make "fair use" of their materials. ……… This will be a nightmare for the WP until a decision is reached by either the 9th Circuit or USSC, because the WP will be required to go to court on an ongoing basis to argue each and every alleged violation of "fair use" in order to have any chance in the appellate courts, because for each instance they don't attempt to enforce the injuction on the fair use limitation, they will be in effect agreeing that those particular posts are not a violation of fair use. When FR brings up all the posts in which the WP sought no injunctive relief to particular postings of their articles, it raises the standard for establishing "fair use". …….The WP is screwed from the get go! FR can't lose! ……. The WP will have to argue "I know violations of 'fair use' when I see it", much like "I can't define what is pornography, but I know it when I see it." This is really hillarious! ……Bet the WP attorneys had a sh!t fit when you agreed to the conditions for the injunction. They completely undermined their entire case when you stipulated to damages. LOL ……"

ENTERTAINMENT WIRE 10/24/00 "……A federal district court judge upheld a suit brought by the operator of a concert information website to stop a competitor from copying and using concert information from the site according to Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp. ……. Although the suit does not allege federal copyright infringement, the court found that the plaintiff had the right to proceed with the suit under California's misappropriation and unfair competition laws. ….Last May, Pollstar, a California-based company that provides worldwide concert tour information at its popular web site, filed suit against Gigmania Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. ……The suit alleges that Gigmania regularly copies Pollstar's concert information and then posts it on its own web site at Pollstar's suit seeks damages and injunctive relief for, among other things, misappropriation and unfair competition. ……"