is813cs@pyr.gatech.EDU (Cris Simpson) (12/15/88)
As promised, here is the BBS lawsuit. I have someone checking to
see if there has been a decision or settlement yet. I will, of
course, post anything I find out.
cris
----X-----X-----X----X---X----X----(cut here)-----X----X----X---X---X--
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
CIVIL DIVISION
Linda Thompson, ) Civil Action No. IP-88 93C
) -----------
Petitioner, )
)
v. )
)
Bob Predaina, )
d/b/a Professional's Choice )
Bulletin Board )
)
Respondent. )
COMPLAINT
Comes now the Petitioner, Linda Thompson, and complains of the
Respondent, Bob Predaina, doing business as the Professional's Choice
Bulletin Board, and in support thereof would show the court:
1. That Petitioner Linda Thompson is a citizen of the United
States and resident of the State of Indiana, County of Marion.
2. That this action arises under U.S.C., Title 18, Chapter 119,
entitled Wire and Electronic Communications Interception of Oral
Communications, ss 2520; U.S.C., Title 18, Chapter 121 entitled
Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records
Access, ss 2707; U.S.C., Title 47, Chapter 5, entitled Wire or Radio
Communication, ss 605(d)(3)(a) and the laws of the State of Indiana.
The matter in controversey exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs,
the sum of ten thousand dollars.
3. That the respondent, Bob Predaina, at all times material was
the owner of a Computer Communications System, as defined in U.S.C.,
Title 18, ss 2510 (14) located in Marion County, Indiana.
4. That the Respondent, Bob Predaina, at all times material was
the owner and operator (hereinafter "System Operator") of an
electronic communication service, as defined in U.S.C., Title 18, ss
2510 (15) and or remote electronic communication service, as
applicable, operated from, attached to or part of the Respondent's
Computer Communications System.
5. That at all times material the computer service of the
Respondent was operated under the name of The Professional's Choice
Bulletin Board (hereinafter by name or "the BBS") in the county of
Marion, state of Indiana.
6. That the BBS at all times material provided electronic
communication, as defined in U.S.C., Title 18, ss 2510 (12), between
"users" as defined in U.S.C., Title 18, ss 2510 (13).
7. That at all times material, the BBS provided electronic
storage, as defined in U.S.C., Title 18, ss 2510 (17) of the
electronic communications of users.
8. That at all times material certain electronic storage and
communication on the BBS was configured so that electronic
communications designated by the user as "Receiver Only" were private
electronic communications to a designated recipient and not readily
accessible to the general public.
9. That at all times material, all electronic storage and
communication on the BBS was configured so that electronic
communications transmitted by a user could be deleted only by the
sending user, the system operator or the designated recipient of a
"Receiver Only" communication, and once deleted, said communication
could not be transmitted, read or readily accessed by anyone,
including the system operator.
10. That at all times material, the respondent was a person, as
defined in U.S.C., Title 47, ss 153 (i) engaged in receiving,
assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting
interstate communication by wire, as defined in U.S.C., Title 47, ss
153 (a) and (e), by means of the electronic communications service.
11. That at all times material, the Petitioner was an authorized
user of the electronic communications service of the Respondent, and
had paid the sum of $35.00 as a subscription fee for a one year
service in October, 1987 to the Respondent.
COUNT I:
12. The Petitioner incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1
through 11 above and further alleges that on an undeterminable date in
January, 1988, without the permission or knowledge of the petitioner,
that the Respondent, Bob Predaina, through the use of an electronic,
mechanical, or other device, as defined in U.S.C., Title 18, 2510 (5),
intentionally or recklessly intercepted, caused to be restored, and
thereby altered the authorized access to a private electronic
communication to which there was no intended recipient, which
communication had been transmitted to and immediately deleted from the
electronic storage of the BBS by the Petitioner on January 2, 1988,
and that said actions of the Respondent are contrary to U.S.C., Title
18, ss 2511 (1)(a); U.S.C., Title 18, ss 2511 (1)(d); U.S.C., Title
18, ss 2511 (3)(a); U.S.C., Title 18, ss 2701 (a) and U.S.C., Title
47, ss 605 (a);
COUNT II:
13. Petitioner incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through
11 and further alleges that the respondent, through the use of said
device, caused said restored private electronic communication to be
converted to a publicly visible electronic communication, readily
accessible by members of the public, contrary to U.S.C., Title 18, ss
2511 (1)(c); U.S.C., Title 18, ss 2511 (1)(d); U.S.C., Title 18, ss
2511 (3)(a); U.S.C., Title 18, 2702 (a) and U.S.C., Title 47, ss 605
(a);
COUNT III:
14. Petitioner incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through
11 and further alleges that on an undeterminable date in December,
1987 the Respondent through use of an electronic, mechanical, or other
device, intentionally or recklessly caused to be made public a private
electronic communication addressed to the Petitioner, Linda Thompson,
without the permission or the knowledge of the sender or of the
Petitioner contrary to U.S.C., Title 18, ss 2511 (1)(a); U.S.C.,
Title 18, ss 2511 (1)(c); U.S.C., Title 18, ss 2511 (3)(a); U.S.C.,
Title 18, ss 2701 (a) and U.S.C., Title 47, ss 605 (a).
COUNT IV:
15. Petitioner incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through
11 and paragraph 13 and further alleges that the Respondent replied in
a public electronic communicaiton on the BBS to a private electronic
communication addressed to the Petitioner, Linda Thompson, thereby
disclosing certain contents of said electronic communication to
members of the public, without the permission of the sender or the
recipient, contrary to U.S.C., Title 18, ss 2511 (1)(c); U.S.C.,
Title 18, 2511 (1)(d); U.S.C., Title 18, ss 2511 (3)(a); U.S.C.,
Title 18, ss 2701 (a); U.S.C., Title 18, ss 2702 (a) and U.S.C.,
Title 47, ss 605 (a).
COUNT V:
16. Petitioner incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through
11 and further alleges that during the month of December, the
respondent allowed a person and/or persons unknown to access and view
the contents of all electronic communications, both public and private
in portions of the electronic storage not readily accessible by
members of the general public without the knowledge or permission of
the petitioner and to this end, that the Respondent restored certain
previously deleted electronic communications of the petitioner and
allowed such other person, not the intended recipient of any of such
communications, to read such communications, contrary to U.S.C., Title
18, ss 2511 (1)(a); U.S.C., Title 18, ss 2511 (1)(c); U.S.C., Title
18, ss 2511 (1)(d); U.S.C., Title 18, ss 2511 (3)(a); U.S.C., Title
18, ss 2701 (a); U.S.C., Title 18, ss 2702 (a) and U.S.C., Title 47,
ss 605 (a).
COUNT VI:
17. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through
11 and further states that on January 3, 1988, the respondent
intentionally altered the access of the petitioner to the electronic
communication servic?Y, contrary to U.S.C., Title 18, ss 2701 (a);
COUNT VII:
18. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through
11 and further states that the respondent intentionally prevented the
petitioner from authorized access to the electronic communication
service from January 3, 1988 to January 6, 1988, contrary to U.S.C.,
Title 18, ss 2701 (a);
COUNT VIII:
19. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through
18 and further states that on January 6, 1988, the Petitioner
requested that the Respondent agree to refrain from any further such
actions contrary to law and the Respondent refused;
COUNT IX:
20. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through
11 and paragraph 19 and further alleges that on January 6, the
respondent intentionally, maliciously or with reckless disregard for
the truth, made statements which on their face are damaging to the
professional and personal reputation of the Petitioner in public and
to another person, subjecting the Petitioner to humiliation, personal
anguish and ridicule, and that said conduct of the Respondent was
contrary to Statutory and common law of the State of Indiana;
COUNT X:
21. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through
11 and paragraph 19 and further alleges that on January 8, the
Respondent intentionally, maliciously, or with reckless disregard for
the truth, made written statements in the form of electronic
communications about the Petitioner which on their face are damaging
to the professional and personal reputation of the Petitioner to
members of the legal profession, subjecting the Petitioner to
humiliation, personal anguish, and ridicule, and that said conduct of
the Respondent was contrary to Statutory and common law of the State
of Indiana;
22. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through
21 and further alleges that all of the facts alleged of the Respondent
were committed willfully, knowingly, intentionally or recklessly,
and/or for the purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage of
the Respondent.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully prays this Court for a
statutory award of damages persuant to U.S.C., Title 18, ss 2520
(c)(2)(b) of ten-thousand dollars ($10,000.00) for each of counts I
through V, totalling fifty-thousand dollars ($50,000.00); for a
statutory award of damages persuant to U.S.C. Title 18, ss 2707 (c) of
one-thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for each of counts VI and VII,
totalling two-thousand dollars ($2,000.00); for a statutory award of
damages persuant to U.S.C., Title 47, ss 605 (d)(3)(C)(i)(II) of
$250.00 for each of Counts I through V, totalling one-thousand-two-
hundred-fifty dollars ($1,250.00); punitive damages persuant to
U.S.C., Title 47, ss 605 (d)(3)(C)(ii), U.S.C., Title 2520, ss (b)(2)
in the amount of fifty-thousand ($50,000); for an award of nine-
thousand ($9,000.00) for the damage to Petitioner's personal and
professional reputation alleged in Counts IX and X; all to the total
amount of one-hundred-twelve-thousand-two-hundred-fifty dollars
($112,250.00) plus interest; and for attorneys fees and costs persuant
to U.S.C. Title 18, ss 2520 (b)(3); U.S.C., Title 18 ss 2707 (b)(3);
and U.S.C., Title 47, ss 605 (d)(3)(B)(iii); and for any and all
other relief just or equitable under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Thompson, pro se
Petitioner
P.O. Box 83
Beech Grove, Indiana 46107
Telephone: (317) 787-9787
--
||...despair! Despair I can handle, it's the hope... J.Cleese,Clockwise ||
Cris Simpson
is813cs@pyr.gatech.edu GA Tech Atlanta,GA
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!is813cs