Indeed, the intention was to "strik[e] at all aspects of the problem" of invasion of privacy, because "[a]ll too often ... [it] ... will go unknown." It continues to be Mr. Robert's persistent and pervasive theme that for our democratic society to defeat the depredations of privacy-invasive devices, it must know that they exist and how they work.
Hence, attempts like yours to chill or impair free exercise of expression in the arena of such public affairs can only be viewed as inimical to the legislative underpinnings of the statute involved. You use of it is akin to the drunkard's fondness for the lamppost: more for support than illumination. Really, sir, for a lawyer to tell a reporter that there's potential criminality involved in writing about a product in the marketplace should make you tremble to know that God is just.
The First Amendment, you seem to require reminding, is an absolute bar to the imposition of such government restraints of the press as you erroneously think your cited statute imports. The press must be free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship. Guarding little secrets, like the existence of your "Triggerfish," at the expense of an informed representative government is about as tawdry a legal proposition as I can imagine.
Let me add that your menacing Full Disclosure's editor with the prospect of criminal charges, in our opinion, implicates issues of professional responsibility. When lawyers in jurisdictions with which I am familiar try that technique to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute, they are subject to discipline. Is there no such sanction for Pennsylvania practitioners?
I invite your reply on the points raised, including your proposal as to how we might avoid formal proceedings to right the wrong you have done Full Disclosure. Failing your willingness to apologize or submit this matter to an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for a declaration of rights, I shall advise Full Disclosure to proceed with an action under 28 USC 2201 as a possible predicate to seeking further relief.
As a matter of professional courtesy, I wish to inform you that the Harris Corp. officers and directors shown as recipients of copies of this letter and its enclosure are not being sent a copy of your letter to Mr. Roberts; it, I believe, more appropriately should reach them from you. For your further information, the two other copy recipients in addition to Mr. Roberts, namely, Messrs.. Ward and Rudnick, are, respectively, our intellectual property adviser and our litigation counsel. You doubtless know Mr. Ward from his prominence at the trademark bar. Mr. Rudnick, who would handle a Rule 57 matter, if such proves necessary, is a former federal prosecutor with the Los Angeles Strike Force.
Sincerely, /s/ Will Dwyer II
Enclosure
Copies: Richard L. Ballantyne, Esq., Mr. John T. Hartley, Mr. Joseph Boyd, Mr. Lester Coleman, Mr. Ralph D. Denunzio, Mr. C. Jackson Grayson, Jr., Mr. George I. Meisel, Mr. Walter Raab, Mr. Robert Cizik. Mr. Joseph Dionne, Mr. Alexander Trowbrige, Mr. Allan J. Huber, Mr. Glen L. Roberts, Marvin L. Rudnick, Esq., Thomas J. Ward, Esq.
No reply has ever been received. Triggerfish is a but a relic of the past. Can you imagine the advancements in the 20+ or so years between Triggerfish, Stingray and what no one has been told about yet?
No one cared in 1991 when the trigger was pulled; The stinger is hitting you now.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).