Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:72443 misc.legal:22783 alt.censorship:1047
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnewsh!wcs
From: wcs@cbnewsh.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Conspiracy law.
Message-ID: <1990Nov24.043755.25962@cbnewsh.att.com>
Date: 24 Nov 90 04:37:55 GMT
References: <1990Nov14.195928.23480@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> <1990Nov20.131334.21651@eff.org>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Here, beside the rising tide
Lines: 15

In article <1990Nov20.131334.21651@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
> >	Also, the "overt act" requirement can be overstated.  Virtually *any*
> >	act qualifies, even an inherently innocent one.
> It is certainly clear that any completed act is an "overt act"--but
> merely talking about the conspiracy is not an "overt act," and it
> was this latter issue that was raised in the previous discussion.

What about an overt act like "making a telephone call about the
cnspiracy to your co-conspirator", or "going to the cash machine,
while knowing you have to pay freeway toll on the way to the crime"?
-- 
					Thanks; Bill
# Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ
Government is like an elephant on drugs: It's very confused, makes lots of noise,
can't do anything well, stomps on anyone in its way, and it sure eats a lot.