90 lines
4.3 KiB
Plaintext
90 lines
4.3 KiB
Plaintext
Subject: Email privacy case settled
|
|
|
|
The long running Alcor/email case against the County and City of Riverside,
|
|
CA was settled out of court in April of this year. The announcement was
|
|
delayed until all parties had signed off, and the check (for $30k) had
|
|
cleared the bank :-).
|
|
|
|
The Alcor Life Extension Foundation (a non-profit cryonics organization
|
|
--alcor@cup.portal.com) ran a BBS for members and prospective members from
|
|
early 1987 through January 12, 1988. On that day, the BBS computer was
|
|
removed under a warrant to take the computer (but no mention of any
|
|
contained email) in connection with the investigation into the death of
|
|
83-year-old Dora Kent. (Mrs. Kent was placed into cryonic suspension by
|
|
Alcor in December of 1987. During and following the investigation, Alcor
|
|
staff members were publicly accused by county officials of murder, theft,
|
|
and building code violations. No charges were ever filed and the
|
|
investigation was officially closed three years later.)
|
|
|
|
In December of 1988 Keith Henson filed a civil suit to force an
|
|
investigation of the apparent violations of the Electronic Communication
|
|
Privacy Act by the FBI, but the case was dismissed by the now convicted
|
|
Judge Aguilar.
|
|
|
|
In early 1990, just before the statute of limitations ran out, Henson and
|
|
14 others (of the roughly 50 people who had email on the system) filed a
|
|
civil action against a number of officials and the County and City of
|
|
Riverside, CA under Section 2707 of the Electronic Communication Privacy
|
|
Act.
|
|
|
|
Some time after the case was filed, the Electronic Frontier Foundation came
|
|
into existence in response to law enforcement abuses involving a wide
|
|
spectrum of the online community. EFF considered this case an important
|
|
one, and helped the plaintiffs in the case by locating pro bono legal help.
|
|
While the case was being transferred, the County and City offered a
|
|
settlement which was close to the maximum damages which could have been
|
|
obtained at trial. Although no precedent was set because the case did not
|
|
go to trial, considerable legal research has been done, and one judgment
|
|
issued in response to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The legal filings
|
|
and the responses they generated from the law firm representing the
|
|
County/City and officials are available by email from mnemonic@eff.org or
|
|
(with delay) from hkhenson@cup.portal.com. (They are also posted on
|
|
Portal.)
|
|
|
|
The Plaintiffs were represented by Christopher Ashworth of Garfield,
|
|
Tepper, Ashworth and Epstein in Los Angeles (408-277-1981). A summary of
|
|
the settlement agreement is attached.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
|
|
|
|
This agreement is made and entered into in Riverside, California,
|
|
this _____ day of ______ by and between [long list of defendants and
|
|
plaintiffs]
|
|
|
|
I.
|
|
|
|
FACTUAL RECITALS
|
|
|
|
1. This Agreement is executed with reference to the following facts
|
|
for purpose of this Agreement only.
|
|
|
|
2. On January 12, 1998, some of the Defendants, pursuant to a search
|
|
warrant, entered into the premises of Alcor Life Extension Foundation in
|
|
Riverside, California.
|
|
|
|
3. Upon entry into the property, some of the Defendants seized various
|
|
items, including electronic media containing E-mail owned by the
|
|
plaintiffs.
|
|
|
|
4. On or about January 11, 1990, plaintiffs commenced civil action No.
|
|
SAC 90-021js in the United States District Court, Santa Ana ("the Action"),
|
|
against the defendants for injuries and damages allegedly suffered as a
|
|
result of the defendants' seizure of plaintiff's E-mail.
|
|
|
|
5 It is now the desire and intention of plaintiffs, on the one part,
|
|
and defendants on the other part, to settle, compromise, and resolve all
|
|
the differences, disagreements, and disputes, which exist and may exist,
|
|
including those which are the subject matter of, referred to, related to,
|
|
or mentioned in the Action. Pursuant to this desire, and in consideration
|
|
of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows.
|
|
|
|
II CONSIDERATION
|
|
|
|
6. Upon the execution of this Agreement, defendants County of
|
|
Riverside shall pay to plaintiffs, by check, the total sum of Thirty
|
|
Thousand Dollars ($30,000), inclusive of attorney fees and cost.
|
|
|
|
7. [The rest of this is boilerplate, except that they wanted
|
|
confidentiality of the agreement, to which we would not agree.]
|