Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 95
  1. Collapse Details
    Jack Venooker reported for making Bomb Threats 
    #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    1812 Pucker St, Stowe, VT 05672
    Posts
    285
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #2
    ᕦ(๒__๓)ᕤ rootbeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Iron Hands fried chicken Chiang Mai technical college
    Posts
    11,875
    RWIMB
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    1812 Pucker St, Stowe, VT 05672
    Posts
    285
    "Root" Beer iz jizz, right?
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    1812 Pucker St, Stowe, VT 05672
    Posts
    285
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #5
    ᕦ(๒__๓)ᕤ rootbeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Iron Hands fried chicken Chiang Mai technical college
    Posts
    11,875
    RWIMB
    .
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    1812 Pucker St, Stowe, VT 05672
    Posts
    285
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    1812 Pucker St, Stowe, VT 05672
    Posts
    285
    "Root" Beer iz jizz, right?
    .
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #8
    patrolled faggot you're a faggot NortyNippy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,438
    lol
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    1812 Pucker St, Stowe, VT 05672
    Posts
    285
    http://www.topix.com/forum/city/stow...E6J8FS9S5C1RIO

    http://pastehtml.com/view/cacfps5ap.rtxt

    196 F.3d 1137 (10th Cir. 1999)

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MATTHEW JOSEPH KAMMERSELL, Defendant - Appellant.

    No. 98-4177

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

    November 15, 1999

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH. D.C. No. 97-CR-084-CRichard McKelvie (Paul M. Warner, United States Attorney and Richard Lambert, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), Salt Lake City, Utah, for Plaintiff - Appellee.

    Deirdre A. Gorman, Ogden, Utah, for Defendant - Appellant.

    Before KELLY, HOLLOWAY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

    KELLY, Circuit Judge.

    Defendant-Appellant Matthew Joseph Kammersell entered a conditional guilty plea to a charge of transmitting a threatening communication in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 875(c). Upon recommendation of the magistrate judge, the district court rejected Mr. Kammersell's contention that federal jurisdiction did not exist because both he and the recipient of the threat were located in the same state when the transmission occurred. He was sentenced to four months imprisonment, and twenty-four months supervised release. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1291 and we affirm.

    Background

    The facts in this case are undisputed. On January 16, 1997, Mr. Kammersell, then nineteen years old, logged on to the Internet service provider (ISP) America On Line ("AOL") from his home computer in Riverdale, Utah. Mr. Kammersell's girlfriend was employed at AOL's service center in Ogden, Utah. He sent a bomb threat to her computer terminal via "instant message," hoping that the threat would enable her to leave work early so they could go on a date.

    When he sent the bomb threat, it was automatically transmitted through interstate telephone lines from his computer in Utah to the AOL server in Virginia and then back to Utah to his girlfriend's terminal at the Ogden service center. Every message sent via AOL automatically goes from the state of origin to AOL's main server in Virginia before going on to its final destination. This pattern of transmission is the same whether the communication is an electronic mail (e-mail) message or an instant message.

    Mr. Kammersell does not contest that the threat traveled out of Utah to Virginia before returning to Utah. Nor does he contest that his message constituted a sufficient "threat" to trigger ยง 875(c). His only claim is that the jurisdictional element of ยง 875(c) cannot be met if based solely on the route of the transmission, where the sender and recipient are both in the same state.

    Discussion

    The district court's refusal to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds was based upon its interpretation of ยง 875(c), therefore, its conclusion is reviewed de novo. See United States v. Brown, 164 F.3d 518, 521 (10th Cir. 1998).

    Section 875(c), provides:

    Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

    This provision was enacted in 1934, and its last significant amendment was in 1939. At that time, the telegraph was still the primary mode of interstate communication.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #10
    ᕦ(๒__๓)ᕤ rootbeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Iron Hands fried chicken Chiang Mai technical college
    Posts
    11,875
    rose west is my bitch
    Reply With Quote
     

  11. Collapse Details
     
    #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    1812 Pucker St, Stowe, VT 05672
    Posts
    285
    WTPh iz Rowz Wezst ????????
    Reply With Quote
     

  12. Collapse Details
     
    #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    1812 Pucker St, Stowe, VT 05672
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack&Joan R FEDERAL View Post
    http://www.topix.com/forum/city/stow...HNTUS8HD7AQF1I PhiXXXtt
    http://pastehtml.com/view/cacfps5ap.rtxt

    196 F.3d 1137 (10th Cir. 1999)

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MATTHEW JOSEPH KAMMERSELL, Defendant - Appellant.

    No. 98-4177

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

    November 15, 1999

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH. D.C. No. 97-CR-084-CRichard McKelvie (Paul M. Warner, United States Attorney and Richard Lambert, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), Salt Lake City, Utah, for Plaintiff - Appellee.

    Deirdre A. Gorman, Ogden, Utah, for Defendant - Appellant.

    Before KELLY, HOLLOWAY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

    KELLY, Circuit Judge.

    Defendant-Appellant Matthew Joseph Kammersell entered a conditional guilty plea to a charge of transmitting a threatening communication in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 875(c). Upon recommendation of the magistrate judge, the district court rejected Mr. Kammersell's contention that federal jurisdiction did not exist because both he and the recipient of the threat were located in the same state when the transmission occurred. He was sentenced to four months imprisonment, and twenty-four months supervised release. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1291 and we affirm.

    Background

    The facts in this case are undisputed. On January 16, 1997, Mr. Kammersell, then nineteen years old, logged on to the Internet service provider (ISP) America On Line ("AOL") from his home computer in Riverdale, Utah. Mr. Kammersell's girlfriend was employed at AOL's service center in Ogden, Utah. He sent a bomb threat to her computer terminal via "instant message," hoping that the threat would enable her to leave work early so they could go on a date.

    When he sent the bomb threat, it was automatically transmitted through interstate telephone lines from his computer in Utah to the AOL server in Virginia and then back to Utah to his girlfriend's terminal at the Ogden service center. Every message sent via AOL automatically goes from the state of origin to AOL's main server in Virginia before going on to its final destination. This pattern of transmission is the same whether the communication is an electronic mail (e-mail) message or an instant message.

    Mr. Kammersell does not contest that the threat traveled out of Utah to Virginia before returning to Utah. Nor does he contest that his message constituted a sufficient "threat" to trigger ยง 875(c). His only claim is that the jurisdictional element of ยง 875(c) cannot be met if based solely on the route of the transmission, where the sender and recipient are both in the same state.

    Discussion

    The district court's refusal to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds was based upon its interpretation of ยง 875(c), therefore, its conclusion is reviewed de novo. See United States v. Brown, 164 F.3d 518, 521 (10th Cir. 1998).

    Section 875(c), provides:

    Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

    This provision was enacted in 1934, and its last significant amendment was in 1939. At that time, the telegraph was still the primary mode of interstate communication.
    Reply With Quote
     

  13. Collapse Details
     
    #13
    ᕦ(๒__๓)ᕤ rootbeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Iron Hands fried chicken Chiang Mai technical college
    Posts
    11,875
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack&Joan R FEDERAL View Post
    WTPh iz Rowz Wezst ????????
    rose west is my bitch
    Reply With Quote
     

  14. Collapse Details
     
    #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    1812 Pucker St, Stowe, VT 05672
    Posts
    285
    Auld LampShade iz LurrrrKKKin'
    Reply With Quote
     

  15. Collapse Details
     
    #15
    patrolled faggot you're a faggot NortyNippy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,438
    ooooooooo00000000000ooooooooooooo000000000000oooooooooooooo I love a crazy
    Reply With Quote
     

  16. Collapse Details
     
    #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    1812 Pucker St, Stowe, VT 05672
    Posts
    285
    Reply With Quote
     

  17. Collapse Details
     
    #17
    patrolled faggot you're a faggot NortyNippy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,438
    YOU ARE CUTE!
    Reply With Quote
     

  18. Collapse Details
     
    #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    1812 Pucker St, Stowe, VT 05672
    Posts
    285
    c u n t........cute
    Reply With Quote
     

  19. Collapse Details
     
    #19
    patrolled faggot you're a faggot NortyNippy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,438
    who's a pretty penis?
    Reply With Quote
     

  20. Collapse Details
     
    #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    1812 Pucker St, Stowe, VT 05672
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack&Joan R FEDERAL View Post
    Auld LampShade iz LurrrrKKKin'
    There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

    Jack&Joan R FEDERAL
    Reply With Quote
     

  21. Collapse Details
     
    #21
    patrolled faggot you're a faggot NortyNippy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,438
    There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

    NortyNippy
    Reply With Quote
     

  22. Collapse Details
     
    #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    1812 Pucker St, Stowe, VT 05672
    Posts
    285
    There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (2 members and 2 guests)

    Jack&Joan R FEDERAL, NortyNippy
    Reply With Quote
     

  23. Collapse Details
     
    #23
    patrolled faggot you're a faggot NortyNippy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,438
    phew

    thank god we finally arrived
    Reply With Quote
     

  24. Collapse Details
     
    #24
    patrolled faggot you're a faggot NortyNippy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,438
    the other two are just voices in my head

    don't worry about them
    Reply With Quote
     

  25. Collapse Details
     
    #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    1812 Pucker St, Stowe, VT 05672
    Posts
    285
    msn
    Reply With Quote
     

  26. Collapse Details
     
    #26
    patrolled faggot you're a faggot NortyNippy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,438
    yes
    Reply With Quote
     

  27. Collapse Details
     
    #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    1812 Pucker St, Stowe, VT 05672
    Posts
    285
    Yo' Jack Venooker...... moi & Lisa iz havin' Cyborg SeXXX
    Reply With Quote
     

  28. Collapse Details
     
    #28
    patrolled faggot you're a faggot NortyNippy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,438
    lol
    Reply With Quote
     

  29. Collapse Details
     
    #29
    patrolled faggot you're a faggot NortyNippy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,438
    talking about jack during cyborg sex is a turn off
    Reply With Quote
     

  30. Collapse Details
     
    #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    1812 Pucker St, Stowe, VT 05672
    Posts
    285
    talking about me talking about jack during cyborg sex is a turn off
    Reply With Quote
     

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

monde is a whiney fuck