theres probably a convoluted way in which Cody can press charges against that guy

 

Cody can't bring criminal charges (no individual can) but the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern Dictrict of Pennsylvania certainly could:

 

18 USC §875

 

c) 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.

 

http://www.law.corne...ode/18/875.html

 

The maximum fine for an individual under Title 18 is $250,000, so the maximum combined penalty ("or both") is 5 years in prison plus a $250K fine.

 

The main case dealing with §875 is United States v. DeAndino, 958 F.2d 146 (US Ct. App. 6th Cir. 1992.) It held that the crime requires proof of three specific elements: 1) there must be a transmission in interstate commerce, 2) there must be a communication containing the threat, and 3) the threat must be a threat to injure the person of another.

 

Nothing about intent, that is, the government doesn't have to prove the sender of the message intended to actually do anything or have anyone else do anything, the mere words in the message are enough.

 

DeAndino was a Sixth Circuit decision and the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth circuit courts have followed it, so it's pretty much the law of the land at this point. Were the U.S. Attorney in Philly to indict this idiot and he was convicted and then appealed to the Third Circuit (which includes Philadelphia,) the odds are extremely high that the Third Circuit would follow the rest of the circuit courts of appeal which have heard similar appeals and have consistently followed DeAndino.

 

If they didn't, the government would likely ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear it and they likely would because of the split at the circuit level. The government would likely win in the USSC as there is NO reference to intent in the statute.

 

In other words, the moron who wrote that message is well and royally screwed if anyone in the U.S. Attorney's office in Philly decides to pursue it.

 

Interesting. But where's the "transmission in interstate commerce"? That seems to imply some sort of fiscal transfer, and none occurred here.

But where's the "transmission in interstate commerce"? That seems to imply some sort of fiscal transfer, and none occurred here.

 

It's got nothing to do with money. The sending of an e-mail from someone in one state to someone in another state is "transmission in interstate commerce," a legal term of art. Same thing with the posting of a message to a message board. That junk was posted by a guy in PA (probably to a server in another state) and read by people in FL and perhaps many other states. Only takes one other state to qualify.

 

There are actually some kiddie-porn cases that take it farther in the First and Third circuit wherein it was held that it doesn't even require people to be in two different states, the mere use of the internet (an interstate medium) by people in the same state was enough to be "transmission in interstate commerce." Whether that would hold up on further appeal to the USSC is open to question.

Some Philly Fans are clowns.

Its funny how i feel the same way about shane victorino but i dont wanna kill him lolthis guys loco.

I love Cody Ross!

But where's the "transmission in interstate commerce"? That seems to imply some sort of fiscal transfer, and none occurred here.

 

It's got nothing to do with money. The sending of an e-mail from someone in one state to someone in another state is "transmission in interstate commerce," a legal term of art. Same thing with the posting of a message to a message board. That junk was posted by a guy in PA (probably to a server in another state) and read by people in FL and perhaps many other states. Only takes one other state to qualify.

 

There are actually some kiddie-porn cases that take it farther in the First and Third circuit wherein it was held that it doesn't even require people to be in two different states, the mere use of the internet (an interstate medium) by people in the same state was enough to be "transmission in interstate commerce." Whether that would hold up on further appeal to the USSC is open to question.

 

Ah, I see. Thanks! :thumbup