Still, Clune made a point of the real-life trial the young woman has already
endured. Why, her phone rings off the hook, often enough with threats.
But the court never released her phone number, which would be easy enough to
change. Clune might start there if his clients can't figure that one out.

http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040721/EDITS/107210008
&SearchID=73178425168554
The attorney representing Kobe Bryant's alleged victim worked up quite a
head of steam the other day in court as he sought to protect his client from
unwarranted exposure.

Anachronistic in other ways, court surely should not be taking advantage of
modern contrivances such as e-mail and a Web site to release public
documents related to the case, given that twice now court officials have
mistakenly released the alleged victim's name and private information into
the electronic ether, if you go with the lawyer's logic. And attorney John
Clune was quite vociferous about it while arguing with the trial judge,
Terry Ruckriegle.
Months ago, the court's Web site carried a posting with the young woman's
name for up to 90 minutes. And a few weeks ago, a court clerk sent
transcripts of a private court hearing to seven media organizations instead
of the attorneys for each side of the case. That was a big oops, with the
state Supreme Court in a 4-3 vote rather remarkably upholding the trial
judge's foray into prior restraint, a concept pretty much in direct conflict
with the First Amendment to the Constitution.
This case is setting all sorts of precedents for wacky turns, so learning
that Kobe Bryant is even more important than national security and the First
Amendment should not be such a surprise. Anyway, the court postings, while
surely embarrassing, haven't revealed more than what already has been all
over the Internet for nearly a year.
Still, Clune made a point of the real-life trial the young woman has already
endured. Why, her phone rings off the hook, often enough with threats.
But the court never released her phone number, which would be easy enough to
change. Clune might start there if his clients can't figure that one out.

s_knight8 wrote:
So someone needs to post her phone number and address.

http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040721/EDITS/107210008
&SearchID=73178425168554
The attorney representing Kobe Bryant's alleged victim worked up quite a
head of steam the other day in court as he sought to protect his client from
unwarranted exposure.
Anachronistic in other ways, court surely should not be taking advantage of
modern contrivances such as e-mail and a Web site to release public
documents related to the case, given that twice now court officials have
mistakenly released the alleged victim's name and private information into
the electronic ether, if you go with the lawyer's logic. And attorney John
Clune was quite vociferous about it while arguing with the trial judge,
Terry Ruckriegle.
Months ago, the court's Web site carried a posting with the young woman's
name for up to 90 minutes. And a few weeks ago, a court clerk sent
transcripts of a private court hearing to seven media organizations instead
of the attorneys for each side of the case. That was a big oops, with the
state Supreme Court in a 4-3 vote rather remarkably upholding the trial
judge's foray into prior restraint, a concept pretty much in direct conflict
with the First Amendment to the Constitution.
This case is setting all sorts of precedents for wacky turns, so learning
that Kobe Bryant is even more important than national security and the First
Amendment should not be such a surprise. Anyway, the court postings, while
surely embarrassing, haven't revealed more than what already has been all
over the Internet for nearly a year.
Still, Clune made a point of the real-life trial the young woman has already
endured. Why, her phone rings off the hook, often enough with threats.
But the court never released her phone number, which would be easy enough to
change. Clune might start there if his clients can't figure that one out.

In article <40FFEA7D.5000108@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
It's always "someone" with you, isn't it, Bob?