On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:35:49 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:47:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


The internet itself is considered a form of interstate commerce
under United States Code.

Cite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Baker

I KNEW someone would bring up U.S. v Baker, that's why I asked!!! You do
realize that he was aquitted of all original counts, right? The only
thing they could get him for was a trumped up charge when they couldn't
persue the original charges.

You wanted a cite that the internet is considered a form of interstate
commerce under the United States Code. I gave you one. His quilt or
innocence is irrelevant to this conversation, but the ibls.com cite,
given above, is completely relevant.

On 8/29/12 7:07 PM, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:35:49 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:47:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


The internet itself is considered a form of interstate commerce
under United States Code.

Cite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Baker

I KNEW someone would bring up U.S. v Baker, that's why I asked!!! You do
realize that he was aquitted of all original counts, right? The only
thing they could get him for was a trumped up charge when they couldn't
persue the original charges.

You wanted a cite that the internet is considered a form of interstate
commerce under the United States Code. I gave you one. His quilt or
innocence is irrelevant to this conversation, but the ibls.com cite,
given above, is completely relevant.


You expect the morons here to be able to read for comprehension?

--

What do the Republican Party of the United States and the Muslim
Brotherhood of the Arab World have in common? They're both faith-based
parties, they both deny science, and they both wage war on women.

In article , dump-on-
says...

On 8/29/12 7:07 PM, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:35:49 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:47:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


The internet itself is considered a form of interstate commerce
under United States Code.

Cite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Baker

I KNEW someone would bring up U.S. v Baker, that's why I asked!!! You do
realize that he was aquitted of all original counts, right? The only
thing they could get him for was a trumped up charge when they couldn't
persue the original charges.

You wanted a cite that the internet is considered a form of interstate
commerce under the United States Code. I gave you one. His quilt or
innocence is irrelevant to this conversation, but the ibls.com cite,
given above, is completely relevant.


You expect the morons here to be able to read for comprehension?

You need to read it then, dip****. He was exonerated for the very reason
that they deemed the internet was NOT a form of itnerstate commerce.

In article , says...

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:35:49 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:47:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


The internet itself is considered a form of interstate commerce
under United States Code.

Cite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Baker

I KNEW someone would bring up U.S. v Baker, that's why I asked!!! You do
realize that he was aquitted of all original counts, right? The only
thing they could get him for was a trumped up charge when they couldn't
persue the original charges.

You wanted a cite that the internet is considered a form of interstate
commerce under the United States Code. I gave you one. His quilt or
innocence is irrelevant to this conversation, but the ibls.com cite,
given above, is completely relevant.

No, it's not. in U.S. v Baker, the "relevant" thing was they proved that
he was innocent BECAUSE the internet was NOT considered a form of
interstate commerce.