I'm not sure who the final paragraph is referring to, but given it ends with the nonsensical "And you are not far." ... well, I think you should be asking yourself if you can actually read what *you* post.
This seems to be the "criminal threat" statute in California.
California Code - Title 11.5: CRIMINAL THREATS
(a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
Seems like a vague threat to "shoot somebody" fails the test at being an actual threat to an actual person. It's certainly not an "unequivocal, unconditional, immediate" specific threat with an "immediate prospect of execution" that's likely to put a specific person in "sustained fear" of their safety or their family's safety.
Guy's a bit of an ass, clearly, and hopefully he can be slapped with something to deter him from going around going 'Ha! Gonna shoot somebody!" but if they're actually gonna prosecute under this section as opposed to something else a half competent lawyer should surely be able to generate reasonable doubt on this one pretty easily?
In updates to the original story, it's alleged that the guy in question didn't post that screed. First it's claimed somebody staying at his place did it, then it's claimed that his facebook page was 'hacked'. Yeah, of course it was ;)
"Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe held plaintiff against his consent when they forced him off the public road into the parking lot, held upon under conditions that plaintiff reasonably believed that he would be subject to arrest and prosecution if he were to leave without Jane Doe’s consent"
"Jane Doe"'s activities are documented in paras 20 to 30.
"Jane Doe" wasn't actually a party to the car being forced off the public road into the parking lot. "John Doe" did that. "Jane Doe" only explained that he hadn't been pulled over, and tried to get a cheek swab. She did not tell him that he had to provide a cheek swab, and indeed stated that he would be paid for the cheek swab. There's nothing in those paragraphs to show that "Jane Doe" did or said anything to make the plaintiff believe he was being held against his will by her.
I see nothing to suggest that "John Doe" was acting upon the explicit instructions of "Jane Doe". I don't see anything alleging she's responsible for these suspicionless stops.
Absent that, what did Jane Doe do wrong, other than be paid to rock up to people and explain that if they hand over a cheek swab they'll get some money? She could be completely innocent in all this, and indeed (unless PIRE gets its management to do the dirty work) probably is.
Para 50: "50. The actions of John Doe and Jane Doe were taken with the express"
The express what?
Do American lawsuits just sue everybody, just in case? Otherwise, absent any facts to suggest knowing wrongdoing, I don't actually see why 'Jane Doe' is being sued. But IANAL. Can anyone explain?
The FISA court would. All you need do is have an NSA representative swear an affadavit confirming that they had firm intelligence that, somewhere in Washington DC, an agent of a foreign power was conducting clandestine meetings with another agent of another foreign power in a woman's restroom, although the exact one was currently unknown.
The NSA would then request a warrant to conduct surveillance on all women's restrooms.
The FISA court would then authorize it, on the STRICT UNDERSTANDING that ONLY foreign persons would be recorded, to which the NSA would agree.
The NSA would then come to the conclusion that, sure, they may be meant to be monitoring only foreign persons, but actually it was impractical to attempt to identify foreigners based on the shapes of their bottoms, and besides there's nothing to stop them using information on Americans they 'inadvertently' record.
And besides, it's not really spying until somebody actually watches the footage.
Boom. Job done. All legal and above board, for the NSA says it is so. And if the NSA says it's conducting all its operations perfectly legally and above board well then ... who are we to question the NSA? There's bound to be a US senator they can get to tell the press it's all legal.
Provided, of course, that leader of a foreign country isn't snapped in a restroom. That's when it all will hit the fan.
Not only that, the chances of the US being ready to go to trial upon your arrival will be pretty slim, so you either sit in a jail cell for x months awaiting trial or you wind up sitting in a strange country for x months ...
And I'd be willing to bet the US would oppose bail, too. You know, what with being a foreigner with significant resources (allegedly) and thus a flight risk ...
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Kaemaril.