Thomas G. Tcimpidis, Sysop of the MOG-UR BBS, has his personal computer and data storage seized by the Los Angeles Police when Pacific Tel determines that one of his message bases contains a stolen Calling Card number.

In 1984, Tom Tcimpidis was running an electronic bulletin board system. Tom's
BBS was very active, with many conferences. He did not monitor or read all 
notes in all the conferences, so he did not realize that some folks were 
exchanging stolen long-distance telephone credit-card numbers in a conference 
on his BBS. The local phone company got a tip that Tom's BBS was being used 
by such thieves, dialed up Tom's BBS to verify those facts, and having done 
so, swore out a criminal warrant for Tom's arrest. Tom was arrested, and his 
computer and floppy disks were confiscated.

Tom quickly appeared (by entering a message via modem) in the LAWyers 
Special Interest Group (LAW SIG) on the CompuServe network - he had to 
use a friends computer to do so since his had been taken by the local 
prosecutors. He posted messages advising the lawyers in the electronic 
conference of the above facts, that he had no knowledge such activities 
were taking place on his BBS, that he was a working stiff without funds 
to pay lawyers' fees, and that he needed help. Los Angeles attorney and 
solo practitioner Charles K. Lindner, another participant in the LAW SIG, 
volunteered to represent Tom. Chuck pointed out that serious legal issues 
were involved in the case--issues that could have a significant and adverse 
effect on the development of telecommunications and teleconferencing should 
Tom be convicted - could the operator of an on-line system b held criminally 
liable for activities and information on the operators system of which the 
operator had no knowledge?. Chuck asked if other lawyers on the system would 
help him in the defense of Tom's case.

Several of us, concerned about the threat of such a criminal action to the 
development and growth of what we instinctively knew was very, very important 
technology, jumped to the task and responded that we would help. We discussed 
the facts in the LAW SIG conference; Chuck uploaded a copy of the statute 
under which Tom was charged, and we dissected the statute; many of us did 
legal research, electronically posting the results in the conference. We 
debated, argued, and discussed the legal issues and existing case law--all 
by teleconference. As we moved forward with our discussions and analysis we 
commenced to prepare a motion to dismiss. Chuck, as the lawyer of record, 
worked with all of us, using the important information we had provided and 
prepared, and filed a collectively created motion to dismiss the case and a 
brief in support thereof.

The end result was that in the face of this well researched motion and 
supporting authority--the product of group action by attorneys from around 
the country via a teleconference--the state's attorney dismissed the entire 
case on its own motion and with prejudice! A total victory for Tom--and for 
teleconferencing!

Without on-line telecommunications and teleconferencing, such a result would 
have been impossible. It would have been impossible for Chuck to talk and 
deal with all the attorneys via "normal" methods of communication--voice 
telephone calls and correspondence - to say nothing of the fact that prior 
to all of us being a part of this on-line conference, none of us knew each 
other. He could never have contacted us all in a timely fashion. Nor could 
he have dealt with all this information--found it, had it analyzed, produced 
documents--from divergent parts of the country. Indeed, most of us did our 
work late at night, in non-prime time--remember, this was pro bono for all 
of us.