Updated 17 December 1999
Initial file: 2 April 1997
See also Peter Junger's Web site: http://samsara.LAW.CWRU.Edu/comp_law/jvd/
July 9, 1998: A fund has been established to defray the cost of this litigation and contributions may be sent to Professor Spencer Neth, Case Western Reserve University Law School, Cleveland, OH 44106. Checks should bear the notation "Junger Litigation Fund" or "Crypto Litigation Fund.''
Originally Peter D. Junger v. Secretary of State et al
This action is brought by a law professor under the First Amendment challenging United States export laws that he claims infringe upon his rights to speak and publish encryption software and other encryption information. Recognizing that encryption software is protected by the First Amendment, the court finds merit in the plaintiff's claims. (From Plaintiff's Proposed Memorandum of Opinion.)
Latest Junger v. Daley Documents
|17 December 1999
27 May 1999
|Junger v. Daley Oral
Junger's Reply Brief to 6th Circuit
|24 April 1999||Government Proof Brief to 6th Circuit|
|10 March 1999||Junger's ACLU Proof Brief to 6th Circuit Court of Appeals|
|14 July 1998||Cindy Cohn: Critique of the Junger Decision|
|8 July 1998||Press Release, July 8, 1998|
|7 July 1998||Opinion and Order, July 2, 1998|
|7 July 1998||Court Docket, July 2, 1998|
|6 July 1998||News report on decision against Junger|
|1 May 1998||Plaintiff's Motion To Supplement the Record|
|14 April 1998||Declaration of Martin Minow|
|12 April 1998||Stipulation of Facts Not In Dispute|
|26 March 1998||Plaintiff's Reply Brief in Support
of His Motion for Summary
Judgment and in Opposition to the Defendant's Motion for
|26 March 1998||Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Support
Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
|28 November 1997||Defendants' Second Cross-Motion for
and Memo of Points and Authorities
|18 October 1997||Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support|
|5 September 1997||Supplemental and Amended Complaint|
|4 September 1997||Succeeding documents|
|19 August 1997||Court docket of August 18, 1997|
|4 April 1997||Add note on prior restraint|
|3 April 1997||Add note at Tab B and revise title of 1.6|
1.1 Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants' Opposition to the Motion for Leave to File First Supplemental and Amended Complaint, March 5, 1997 (12K)
1.2 Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Refile Proposed Memorandum Opinion with Exhibits and Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike Affidavits and Exhibits or, in the Alternative, Motion for Judicial Notice, March 5, 1997 (10K)
1.3 Second (Corrected) Motion to Refile Proposed Memorandum Opinion, February 24, 1997 (4K)
1.4 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental and Amended Complaint Instanter, February 13, 1997 (8K)
1.5 First Supplemental and Amended Complaint, February 13, 1997 (31K)Tab A(1) Presidential Memorandum, November 15, 1996 (9K)
(2) Executive Order 13026, November 15, 1996 (9K)
(3) Encryption Items Transferred From the U.S. Munitions List to the Commerce Control List, Federal Register, December 30, 1996 (111K)
(4) Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, Federal Register, December 30, 1996 (6K)
Tab B -- Computers and the Law excerpts (Algorithms deleted April 3 at request of attorneys for Plaintiff and Defendants)
Tab D -- Letter from the U.S. Department of Commerce to Gino Scarselli, Attorney for the Plaintiff, January 29, 1997 (14K)
Tab E -- Letter from Gino J. Scarselli to Anthony Coppolino, Department of Justice, Attorney for the Defendants, January 2, 1997 (6K)
1.6 Plaintiff's Proposed Memorandum of Opinion, No Date (139K)
1.7 Statement of Issues, Points and Authorities in Anticipation of Oral Arguments, November 7, 1996 (21K)
2.1 Reply in Support of Defendants' Cross-Motion to Strike New Affidavits and Exhibits, March 11, 1997 (14K)
2.2 Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Complaint, February 27, 1997 (16K)
2.3 Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Refile Proposed Memorandum Opinion with Exhibits and Defendants' Cross-Motion to Strike New Affidavits and Exhibits, February 27, 1997 (13K)
2.4 Defendants' Proposed Findings and Facts and Conclusions of Law, February 6, 1997 (137K)
4 April 1997
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 22:11:24 -0500
From: John Young <email@example.com>
Subject: Prior Restraint
As noted here on April 2, we've put on our Web site several of the docs of the Peter Junger suit against the Secretary of State:
One gives parts of Peter's article "Computers and the Law" which includes machine-readable code, code which is prohibited by the EAR from being placed on the Internet without a license (it is this "prior restraint" that Peter is challenging):
When Peter saw that I had put the article and code on my site, he telephoned immediately to say that the article should not have been sent to me along with the other material. He asked that it be removed because electronic publication could harm his case and put me at risk of prosecution.
After discussion I declined to remove it, and thanked him for his advice.
Yesterday, Raymond Vasvari, one of Peter's three attorneys, called to politely ask that I remove the doc. And further explained how its electronic publication could harm the case and put me at risk.
He said that he had notified Anthony Coppolino, DoJ, that the document was on the Web, as he was obliged to do by procedural rules. That they had discussed the ramifications. He did not say what DoJ intended to do.
And, that he was obliged as an attorney to advise me to retain an attorney for my defense against prosecution for placing the doc on the Web.
During this discussion with Mr. Vasvari I checked the access log for the prohibited doc and saw that DoJ had accessed it as well as several other files on me and my org.
I told Mr. Vasvari this and he again advised me to remove the doc. Again, I declined.
After chewing on this restraint of my publication by the attorneys, I decided to delete only the machine-readable code from Peter's article, leaving the text which explains why the electronic publication of the code is the crux of Peter's First Amendment case. On the assumption that his prior restraint claim is more important than mine.
Take at look and let me know what you think. Should I have deleted the code or left it in the public domain where it belongs? Am I right to comply with the attorneys' first claim on prior restraint?
Meanwhile, anyone worldwide who wants the article with the code intact, send me an email <firstname.lastname@example.org> for instructions on how to get it.
Use the subject: Restraint
Hypertext by JYA/Urban Deadline