Jack Venooker reported for making Bomb Threats

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

Steigh Toont......

RWIMB

"Root" Beer iz jizz, right?

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/stow...UBV5476S3DMSSJ

RWIMB
.

cc:

BBaraw@pshift.com

"Root" Beer iz jizz, right?
.

lol

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. § 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. § 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 § 875(c). His only claim is that the jurisdictional element of § 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 § 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.

rose west is my bitch

WTPh iz Rowz Wezst ????????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack&Joan R FEDERAL

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. § 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. § 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 § 875(c). His only claim is that the jurisdictional element of § 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 § 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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack&Joan R FEDERAL

WTPh iz Rowz Wezst ????????

---

rose west is my bitch

Auld LampShade iz LurrrrKKKin'

ooooooooo00000000000ooooooooooooo000000000000oooooooooooooo I love a crazy

http://hollywoodgosssip.com/jackveno...forbombthreats

YOU ARE CUTE!

c u n t........cute

who's a pretty penis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack&Joan R FEDERAL

Auld LampShade iz LurrrrKKKin'

---

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

Jack&Joan R FEDERAL

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

NortyNippy

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (2 members and 2 guests)

Jack&Joan R FEDERAL, NortyNippy

phew

thank god we finally arrived

the other two are just voices in my head

don't worry about them

msn

yes

Yo' Jack Venooker...... moi & Lisa iz havin' Cyborg SeXXX

lol

talking about jack during cyborg sex is a turn off

talking about me talking about jack during cyborg sex is a turn off