Visit our newest sister site!
Hundreds of free aircraft flight manuals
Civilian • Historical • Military • Declassified • FREE!


TUCoPS :: Cyber Law :: jacksuit.txt

Complete text of Steve Jackson Games' suit against the U.S. Secret Service







UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

STEVE JACKSON GAMES INCORPORATED,
STEVE JACKSON, ELIZABETH
McCOY, WALTER MILLIKEN, and 
STEFFAN O'SULLIVAN, 
 
                    Plaintiffs,

        v.

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
WILLIAM J. COOK, TIMOTHY M. FOLEY,
BARBARA GOLDEN, and HENRY M. KLUEPFEL,

                       Defendants.

		
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
I.  INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
     This is a civil action for damages to redress 
violations of the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, 
42 U.S.C.  2000aa et seq; the Electronic 
Communications Privacy Act, as amended, 18 U.S.C.  
2510 et seq and 2701 et seq; and the First and 
Fourth Amendments to the United States 
Constitution. 
     Plaintiffs are Steve Jackson Games 
Incorporated ("SJG"), an award-winning publisher of 
books, magazines, and games; its president and sole 
owner Steve Jackson; and three other users of an 
electronic bulletin board system operated by SJG.  
	Defendants are the United States Secret 
Service, the United States of America, an Assistant 
United States Attorney, Secret Service agents, and 
a private individual who acted at the direction of 
these federal officers and agents and under color 
of federal authority.
     Although neither Steve Jackson nor SJG was a 
target of any criminal investigation, defendants 
caused a general search of the business premises of 
SJG and the wholesale seizure, retention, and 
conversion of computer hardware and software and 
all data and communications stored there.  
Defendants seized and retained work product and 
documentary materials relating to SJG books, games, 
and magazines, thereby imposing a prior restraint 
on the publication of such materials.  Defendants 
also seized and retained an entire electronic 
bulletin board system, including all computer 
hardware and software used to operate the system 
and all data and communications stored on the 
system, causing a prior restraint on the operation 
of the system.  Defendants also seized and retained 
computer hardware and software, proprietary 
information, records, and communications used by 
SJG in the ordinary course of operating its 
publishing business. 
     The search of this reputable publishing 
business and resulting seizures constituted a 
blatant violation of clearly established law.  The 
search and seizure violated the Privacy Protection 
Act of 1980, which strictly prohibits law 
enforcement officers from using search and seizure 
procedures to obtain work product or documentary 
materials from a publisher, except in narrow 
circumstances not applicable here.  The seizure and 
retention of SJG's work product and bulletin board 
system, as well as the seizure and retentionof the 
computers used to prepare SJG publications and to 
operate the bulletin board system, violated the 
First Amendment.  The search and seizure, which 
encompassed proprietary business information and 
private electronic communications as well as 
materials protected by the First Amendment, also 
violated the Fourth Amendment.  Defendants 
conducted an unconstitutional general search 
pursuant to a facially invalid, general warrant.  
The warrant was issued without probable cause to 
believe that any evidence of criminal activity 
would be found at SJG and was issued on the basis 
of false and misleading information supplied by the 
defendants.  Defendants also invaded plaintiffs' 
privacy by seizing and intercepting the plaintiffs' 
private electronic communications in violation of 
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.  
	Defendants' wrongful and unlawful conduct 
amounted to an assault by the government on the 
plaintiffs, depriving them of their property, their 
privacy, their First Amendment rights and 
inflicting humiliation and great emotional distress 
upon them.
II.  DEFINITIONS
     When used in this complaint, the following 
words and phrases have the following meanings:
	Computer Hardware: Computer hardware consists 
of the mechanical, magnetic, electronic, and 
electrical devices making up a computer system, 
such as the central processing unit, computer 
storage devices (disk drives, hard disks, floppy 
disks), keyboard, monitor, and printing devices.
	Computer Software: Computer software consists 
of computer programs and related instructions and 
documentation.
	Computer Program:  A computer program is a set 
of instructions that, when executed on a computer, 
cause the computer to process data.
	Source Code: Source code is a set of 
instructions written in computer programming 
language readable by humans.  Source code must be 
"compiled," "assembled," or "interpreted" with the 
use of a computer program before it is executable 
by a computer. 
	Text File:  A computer file is a collection of 
data treated as a unit by a computer.  A text file 
is a memorandum, letter, or any other alphanumeric 
text treated as a unit by a computer.  A text file 
can be retrieved from storage and viewed on a 
computer monitor, printed on paper by a printer 
compatible with the computer storing the data, or 
transmitted to another computer.
	Modem: A modem, or modulator-demodulator, is 
an electronic device that makes possible the 
transmission of data to or from a computer over 
communications channels, including telephone lines.  
     Electronic mail: Electronic mail (e-mail) is a 
data communication transmitted between users of a 
computer system or network.  E-mail is addressed to 
one or more accounts on a computer system assigned 
to specific users and is typically stored on the 
system computer until read and deleted by the 
addressee.  The privacy of electronic mail is 
typically secured by means of a password, so that 
only individuals withknowledge of the account's 
password can obtain access to mail sent to that 
account. 
     Electronic Bulletin Board System (BBS):  A BBS 
is a computerized conferencing system that permits 
communication and association between and among its 
users.  A systems operator ("sysop") manages the 
BBS on a computer system that is equipped with 
appropriate hardware and software to store text 
files and communications and make them accessible 
to users.   Users of the BBS gain access to the 
system using their own computers and modems and 
normal telephone lines.  
     A BBS is similar to a traditional bulletin 
board in that it allows users to transmit and 
"post" information readable by other users.  Common 
features of a BBS include:
   (1) Conferences in which users engage in an 
ongoing exchange of information and ideas.  
Conferences can be limited to a specific group of 
users, creating an expectation of privacy, or open 
to the general public.
   (2) Archives containing electronically stored 
text files accessible to users; 
   (3) Electronic mail service, in which the host 
computer facilitates the delivery, receipt, and 
storage of electronic mail sent between users.
     Bulletin board systems may be maintained as 
private systems or permit access to the general 
public.  They range in size from small systems 
operated by individuals using personal computers in 
their homes, to medium-sized systemsoperated by 
groups or commercial organizations, to world-wide 
networks of interconnected computers.  The subject 
matter and number of topics discussed on a BBS are 
limited only by the choices of the system's 
operators and users.  Industry estimates indicate 
that well over a million people in the United 
States use bulletin board systems. 
III.  PARTIES  
     1.  Plaintiff SJG is a corporation duly 
organized and existing under the laws of the State 
of Texas.  At all relevant times, SJG was engaged 
in the business of publishing adventure games and 
related books and magazines.  Its place of business 
is 2700-A Metcalfe Road, Austin, Texas.
     2.  Plaintiff Steve Jackson ("Jackson"), the 
president and sole owner of SJG, is an adult 
resident of the State of Texas.
     3.  Plaintiffs Elizabeth McCoy, Walter 
Milliken, and Steffan O'Sullivan are adult 
residents of the State of New Hampshire.  At all 
relevant times, they were users of the electronic 
bulletin board system provided and operated by SJG 
and known as the "Illuminati Bulletin Board System" 
("Illuminati BBS").
     4.  The United States Secret Service, an 
agency within the Treasury Department, and the 
United States of America sued in Counts I, IV, and 
V.  
     5.  Defendant William J. Cook ("Cook") is an 
adult resident of the State of Illinois.  At all 
relevant times,Cook was employed as an Assistant 
United States Attorney assigned to the United 
States Attorney's office in Chicago, Illinois.  
Cook is sued in Counts II-V.
     6.  Defendant Timothy M. Foley ("Foley") is an 
adult resident of the State of Illinois.  At all 
relevant times, Foley was employed as a Special 
Agent of the United States Secret Service, assigned 
to the office of the United States Secret Service 
in Chicago, Illinois.  At all relevant times, Foley 
was an attorney licensed to practice law in the 
State of Illinois.  Foley is sued in Counts II-V.
     7.  Defendant Barbara Golden ("Golden") is an 
adult resident of the State of Illinois.  At all 
relevant times, Golden was employed as a Special 
Agent of the United States Secret Service assigned 
to the Computer Fraud Section of the United States 
Secret Service in Chicago, Illinois.
     8.  Defendant Henry M. Kluepfel ("Kluepfel") 
is an adult resident of the state of New Jersey.  
At all relevant times, Kluepfel was employed by 
Bell Communications Research as a district manager.  
Kluepfel is sued in Counts II-V.
III.  JURISDICTION AND VENUE
     9.  This Court's jurisdiction is invoked 
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  1331 and 42 U.S.C.  2000aa-
6(h).  Federal question jurisdiction is proper 
because this is a civil action authorized and 
instituted pursuant to the First and Fourth 
Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 
U.S.C.  2000aa-6(a) and 6(h), and 18 U.S.C.  2707 
and 2520.
     10.  Venue in the Western District of Texas is 
proper under 28 U.S.C.  1391(b), because a 
substantial part of the events or omissions giving 
rise to the claims occurred within this District.
IV.  STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Steve Jackson Games
     11.  SJG, established in 1980 and incorporated 
in 1984, is a publisher of books, magazines, and 
adventure games. 
   (a) SJG books and games create imaginary worlds 
whose settings range from prehistoric to futuristic 
times and whose form encompass various literary 
genres.
   (b) The magazines published by SJG contain news, 
information, and entertainment relating to the 
adventure game industry and related literary 
genres.
     12.  SJG games and publications are carried by 
wholesale distributors throughout the United States 
and abroad.
     13.  SJG books are sold by national retail 
chain stores including B. Dalton, Bookstop, and 
Waldenbooks.
     14.  Each year from 1981 through 1989, and 
again in 1991, SJG board games, game books, and/or 
magazines have been nominated for and/or received 
the Origins Award.  The Origins Award, administered 
by the Game Manufacturers' Association, is the 
adventure game industry's most prestigious award.  
     15.  SJG is not, and has never been, in the 
business of selling computer games, computer 
programs, or other computer products. 
     16.  On March 1, 1990, SJG had 17 employees.
Steve Jackson Games Computer Use
     17.  At all relevant times, SJG relied upon 
computers for many aspects of its business, 
including but not limited to the following uses: 
   (a) Like other publishers of books or magazines, 
and like a newspaper publisher, SJG used computers 
to compose, store, and prepare for publication the 
text of its books, magazines, and games.
   (b) SJG stored notes, source materials, and 
other work product and documentary materials 
relating to SJG publications on its computers.
   (c) Like many businesses, SJG used computers to 
create and store business records including, but 
not limited to, correspondence, contracts, address 
directories, budgetary and payroll information, 
personnel information, and correspondence.
     18.  Since 1986, SJG has used a computer to 
operate an electronic bulletin board system (BBS) 
dedicated to communication of information about 
adventure games, the game industry, related 
literary genres, and to association among 
individuals who share these interests. 
   (a) The BBS was named "Illuminati," after the 
company's award-winning board game.
   (b) At all relevant times, the Illuminati BBS 
was operated by means of a computer located on the 
business premises of SJG.  The computer used to run 
the Illuminati BBS (hereafter the "Illuminati 
computer") was connected to the telephone number 
512-447-4449.  Users obtained access to 
communications and information stored on the 
Illuminati BBS from their own computers via 
telephone lines.   
   (c) The Illuminati BBS provided a forum for 
communication and association among its users, 
which included SJG employees, customers, retailers, 
writers, artists, competitors, writers of science 
fiction and fantasy, and others with an interest in 
the adventure game industry or related literary 
genres.
   (d) SJG, Jackson, and SJG employees also used 
the Illuminati BBS in the course of business to 
communicate with customers, retailers, writers, and 
artists; to provide customer service; to obtain 
feedback on games and new game ideas; to obtain 
general marketing information; to advertise its 
games and publications, and to establish good will 
and a sense of community with others who shared 
common interests.
   (e) As of February 1990, the Illuminati BBS had 
over 300 users residing throughout the United 
States and abroad.
   (f) At all relevant times, plaintiffs SJG, 
Jackson, McCoy, Milliken, and O'Sullivan were 
active users of the Illuminati BBS.
   (g) Each user account was assigned a password to 
secure the privacy of the account.
   (h) The Illuminati BBS gave users access to 
general files of electronically stored information.  
General files included, but were not limited to, 
text files containing articles on adventure games 
and game-related humor, including articles 
published in SJG magazines and articles contributed 
by users of the BBS, and text files containing game 
rules.  These general files were stored on the 
Illuminati computer at SJG.
   (i) The Illuminati BBS provided several public 
conferences, in which users of the BBS could post 
information readable by other users and read 
information posted by others.  The discussions in 
the public conferences focused on SJG products, 
publications and related literary genres. All 
communications transmitted to these conferences 
were stored in the Illuminati computer at SJG.
   (j) SJG informed users of the Illuminati BBS 
that

"any opinions expressed on the BBS, unless 
specifically identified as the opinions or policy 
of Steve Jackson Games Incorporated, are only those 
of the person posting them.  SJ Games will do its 
best to remove any false, harmful or otherwise 
obnoxious material posted, but accepts no 
responsibility for material placed on this board 
without its knowledge.
   (k) The Illuminati BBS also provided private 
conferences that were accessible only to certain 
users authorized by SJG and not to the general 
public.  All communications transmitted to these 
conferences were stored in the Illuminati computer 
at SJG.
   (l)  The Illuminati BBS provided a private 
electronic mail (e-mail) service, which permitted 
the transmission of private communications between 
users on the system as follows:
   (i) E-mail transmitted to an account on the 
Illuminati BBS was stored on the BBS computer until 
deleted by the addressee.
   (ii) The privacy of e-mail was secured by the 
use of passwords.
   (iii) The privacy of e-mail was also secured by 
computer software that prevented the system 
operator from reading e-mail inadvertently.
   (iv) The privacy of e-mail was also secured by 
SJG policy.  SJG informed users of the Illuminati 
BBS that "[e]lectronic mail is private." 
   (v) As a matter of policy, practice, and 
customer expectations, SJG did not read e-mail 
addressed to Illuminati users other than SJG.
   (vi) At all relevant times, all plaintiffs used 
the e-mail service on the Illuminati BBS.
   (vii) On March 1, 1990, the Illuminati computer 
contained stored e-mail sent to or from each of the 
plaintiffs.
The Illegal Warrant and Application    
     19.  On February 28, 1990, defendant Foley 
filed an application with this Court, for a warrant 
authorizing the search of the business premises of 
SJG and seizure of "[c]omputer hardware (including, 
but not limited to, central processing unit(s), 
monitors, memory devices, modem(s), programming 
equipment, communication equipment, disks, and 
prints) and computer software (including, but not 
limited to, memory disks, floppy disks, storage 
media) and written material and documents relating 
to the use of the computer system (including 
networking access files), documentation relating to 
the attacking of computers and advertising the 
results of computer attacks (including telephone 
numbers and location information), and financial 
documents and licensing documentation relative to 
the computer programs and equipment at the business 
known as Steve Jackson Games which constitute 
evidence, instrumentalities and fruits of federal 
crimes, including interstate transportation of 
stolen property (18 USC 2314) and interstate 
transportation of computer access information (18 
USC 1030(a)(6)).  This warrant is for the seizure 
of the above described computer and computer data 
and for the authorization to read information 
stored and contained on the above described 
computer and computer data."
A copy of the application and supporting affidavit 
of defendant Foley (hereafter "Foley affidavit") 
are attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein 
by reference.
     20.  The search warrant was sought as part of 
an investigation being conducted jointly by 
defendant Cook and the United States Attorney's 
office in Chicago; defendants Foley, Golden, and 
the Chicago field office of the United States 
Secret Service; and defendant Kluepfel.
     21.  On information and belief, neither SJG 
nor Jackson nor any of the plaintiffs were targets 
of this investigation.
     22.  The Foley affidavit was based on the 
investigation of defendant Foley and on information 
and investigative assistance provided to him by 
others, including defendants Golden and Kluepfel 
and unnamed agents of the United States Secret 
Service.  Foley Affidavit para. 3.
     23.  The Foley affidavit alleged that 
defendant Kluepfel had participated in the 
execution of numerous federal and state search 
warrants.  Id.
     24.  On information and belief, Defendant Cook 
participated in the drafting, review, and 
submission of the warrant application and 
supporting affidavit to this Court.
     25.  The warrant application and supporting 
affidavit were placed under seal on motion of the 
United States.
     26.  On February 28, 1990, based on the Foley 
affidavit, a United States Magistrate for the 
Western District of Texas granted defendant Foley's 
warrant application and issued awarrant authorizing 
the requested search and seizure described in 
paragraph 19 above.  A copy of the search warrant 
is attached as Exhibit B.
     27.  The warrant was facially invalid for the 
following reasons:
   (a)  It was a general warrant that failed to 
describe the place to be searched with 
particularity.
   (b)  It was a general warrant that failed to 
describe things to be seized with particularity.
   (c) It swept within its scope handwritten, 
typed, printed, and electronically stored 
communications, work product, documents, and 
publications protected by the First Amendment.
   (d) It swept within its scope SJG proprietary 
information and business records relating to 
activities protected by the First Amendment.
   (e) It swept within its scope a BBS that was a 
forum for speech and association protected by the 
First Amendment.
   (f) It swept within its scope computer hardware 
and software that were used by SJG to publish 
books, magazines, and games.
   (g) It swept within its scope computer hardware 
and software used by SJG to operate a BBS.
     28.  The warrant was also invalid in that it 
authorized the seizure of work product and 
documentary materials from apublisher "reasonably 
believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the 
public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other 
similar form of public communication, in or 
affecting interstate or foreign commerce," which is 
generally prohibited by 42 U.S.C.  2000aa(a) and 
(b), without showing the existence of any of the 
narrow statutory exceptions in which such a search 
and seizure is permitted.  Specifically, the Foley 
affidavit did not establish the existence of any of 
the following circumstances: 
   (a) The Foley affidavit did not establish 
probable cause to believe that SJG, or any employee 
in possession of work product materials at SJG, had 
committed or was committing a criminal offense to 
which such materials related.
   (b) The Foley affidavit did not establish 
probable cause to believe that SJG or any employee 
of SJG in possession of work product materials at 
SJG, had committed or was committing a criminal 
offense to which such materials related consisting 
of other than the receipt possession, 
communication, or withholding of such materials or 
the information contained therein.
   (c) The Foley affidavit did not establish 
probable cause to believe that SJG, or any employee 
of SJG in possession of work product materials at 
SJG, had committed or was committing a criminal 
offense consisting of the receipt, possession, or 
communicationof information relating to the 
national defense, classified information, or 
restricted data under the provisions of 18 U.S.C.  
793, 794, 797, or 798 or 50 U.S.C.  783.
   (d) The Foley affidavit did not establish reason 
to believe that immediate seizure of work product 
materials from SJG was necessary to prevent the 
death of, or serious bodily injury to, a human 
being.
   (e) The Foley affidavit did not establish 
probable cause to believe that SJG, or any employee 
of SJG in possession of documentary materials at 
SJG, had committed or was committing a criminal 
offense to which the materials related.
   (f)  The Foley affidavit did not establish 
probable cause to believe that SJG, or any employee 
of SJG in possession of documentary materials at 
SJG had committed or was committing a criminal 
offense to which the materials related consisting 
of other than the receipt, possession, 
communication, or withholding of such materials or 
the information contained therein.
   (g)  The Foley affidavit did not establish 
probable cause to believe that SJG, or any employee 
of SJG in possession of documentary materials at 
SJG, had committed or was committing an offense 
consisting of the receipt, possession, or 
communication of information relating to the 
national defense, classifiedinformation, or 
restricted data under the provisions of 18 U.S.C.  
793, 794, 797, or 798 or 50 U.S.C.  783. 
   (h)  The Foley affidavit did not establish 
reason to believe that the immediate seizure of 
such documentary materials was necessary to prevent 
the death of, or serious bodily injury to, a human 
being.
   (i)  The Foley affidavit did not establish 
reason to believe that the giving of notice 
pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum would result in 
the destruction, alteration, or concealment of such 
documentary materials.
   (j)  The Foley affidavit did not establish that 
such documentary materials had not been produced in 
response to a court order directing compliance with 
a subpoena duces tecum and that all appellate 
remedies had been exhausted or that there was 
reason to believe that the delay in an 
investigation or trial occasioned by further 
proceedings relating to the subpoena would threaten 
the interests of justice.
     29.  The warrant was invalid because the 
warrant application and supporting affidavit of 
defendant Foley did not establish probable cause to 
believe that the business premises of SJG was a 
place where evidence of criminal activity would be 
found, in that:  
   (a) The Foley affidavit did not allege that 
evidence of criminal activity would be found at 
SJG.  Rather, the affidavit alleged that "E911 
source code and text file"and a "decryption 
software program" would be "found in the computers 
located at 1517G Summerstone, Austin, Texas, or at 
2700-A Metcalfe  Road, Austin, Texas [SJG], or at 
3524 Graystone #192, or in the computers at each of 
those locations."  Foley Affidavit para. 30 
(emphasis added).
   (b) The Foley affidavit did not establish 
probable cause to believe that E911 source code 
would be found at the business premises of SJG.
   (c) The Foley affidavit did not establish 
probable cause to believe that an E911 text file 
would be found at the business premises of SJG.
   (d) The Foley affidavit did not establish 
probable cause to believe that a decryption 
software program would be found at the business 
premises of SJG.
     30.  Even assuming, arguendo, that the warrant 
affidavit demonstrated probable cause to believe 
that "E911 source code and text file" and a 
"password decryption program" would be found at the 
business premises of SJG, the warrant was still 
invalid because its description of items to be 
seized was broader than any probable cause shown, 
in that:
   (a) The warrant authorized the seizure of 
computer hardware, software, and documentation that 
did not constitute evidence, instrumentalities, or 
fruits of criminal activity;
   (b) The warrant authorized the seizure and 
reading of electronically stored data, including 
publications, work product, proprietary 
information, business records, personnel records, 
and correspondence, that did not constitute 
evidence, instrumentalities, or fruits of criminal 
activity;
   (c) The warrant authorized the seizure and 
reading of electronically stored communications 
that were not accessible to the public, including 
private electronic mail, and that did not 
constitute evidence, instrumentalities, or fruits 
of criminal activity. 
     31.  The warrant is invalid because there is 
nothing in the Foley affidavit to show that the 
information provided by defendant Kluepfel 
regarding the BBS at SJG was not stale.
     32.  The warrant was invalid because the Foley 
affidavit was materially false and misleading, and 
because defendants submitted it knowing it was 
false and misleading or with reckless disregard for 
the truth, as set forth in paragraphs 33-40 below.
     33.  The Foley affidavit did not inform the 
Magistrate that SJG was a publisher of games, 
books, and magazines, engaged in the business of 
preparing such materials for public dissemination 
in or affecting interstate commerce;
   (a) This omission was material;
   (b) Defendants omitted this material information 
from the warrant application knowingly or with 
reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the 
application.
     34.  The Foley affidavit did not inform the 
Magistrate that SJG used computers to compose and 
prepare publications for public dissemination; 
   (a) This omission was material;
   (b) Defendants omitted this material information 
from the warrant application knowingly or with 
reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the 
application.
     35.  The Foley affidavit did not inform the 
Magistrate that the computer at SJG used to operate 
the BBS contained electronically stored texts, work 
product, documentary materials, and communications 
stored for the purpose of public dissemination in 
or affecting interstate commerce; 
   (a) This omission was material;
   (b) Defendants omitted this material information 
from the warrant application knowingly or with 
reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the 
application.
     36.  The Foley affidavit did not inform the 
Magistrate that a computer used to operate the BBS 
at SJG operated a forum for constitutionally 
protected speech and association regarding 
adventure games and related literary genres;
   (a) This omission was material;
   (b) Defendants omitted this material information 
from the warrant application knowingly or with 
reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the 
application.
     37.  The Foley affidavit did not inform the 
Magistrate that the computer used to operate the 
BBS at SJG contained stored private electronic 
communications; 
   (a) This omission was material;
   (b) Defendants omitted this material information 
from the warrant application knowingly or with 
reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the 
application.
     38.  The Foley affidavit falsely alleged that 
the E911 text file was a "program." Foley Affidavit 
paras. 8, 14, 17;      (a) This false allegation 
was material;
   (b) Defendants made this material false 
allegation knowingly or with reckless disregard for 
its truth or falsity;
   (c) Defendants Cook and Foley have acknowledged 
that the E911 text file is not a program.     
	39.  The affidavit of defendant Foley falsely 
alleges that the information in the E911 text file 
was "highly proprietary" and "sensitive".  Foley 
Affidavit paras. 13, 14, 22;
   (a) This false allegation was material;
   (b) Defendants made this material false 
allegation knowingly or with reckless disregard for 
its truth or falsity;
   (c) Defendant Cook has acknowledged that much of 
the information in the E911 text file had been 
disclosed to the public.
     40.  The affidavit of defendant Foley falsely 
alleges that the E911 text file was "worth 
approximately $79,000.00," para. 4, and "engineered 
at a cost of $79,449.00," para. 14;
   (a)  This false allegation was material;
   (b) Defendants made this material false 
allegation knowingly or with reckless disregard for 
its truth or falsity;
   (c) Defendant Cook has acknowledged that the 
value of the nondisclosed information in the E911 
text file was less than the $5000.00 jurisdictional 
minimum for Interstate Transportation of Stolen 
Property, 18 U.S.C.  2314.
	41.  Reasonable persons in defendants' 
position would have known that the warrant was 
invalid for the reasons given in paragraphs 27-40 
and would not have requested or relied on the 
warrant.The Search and Seizure:
     42.  Nevertheless, on March 1, 1990, defendant 
Golden, other agents of the United States Secret 
Service, and others acting in concert with them, 
conducted a general search of the SJG office and 
warehouse.
     43.  The searching officers prevented SJG 
employees from entering their workplace or 
conducting any business from 8:00 a.m. until after 
1:00 p.m. on March 1, 1990.
     44.  The agents seized computer hardware and 
related documentation, including, but not limited 
to, the following:
(a) three central processing units;
     (b) hard drives;
     (c) hundreds of disks;
     (d  2 monitors;
     (e) 3 keyboards;
     (f) 3 modems;
     (g) a printer;
(h) electrical equipment including, but not limited 
to, extension cords, cables, and adapters;
     (i) screws, nuts, and other small parts.
     45.  The agents seized all computer hardware, 
computer software, and supporting documentation 
used by SJG to run the Illuminati BBS, thereby 
causing the following to occur:
   (a) the seizure of all programs, text files, and 
public communications stored on the BBS computer;
   (b) the seizure of all private electronic 
communications stored on the system, including 
electronic mail; 
   (c) preventing plaintiffs from operating and 
using the BBS.
     46.  The agents seized computer software and 
supporting documentation that SJG used in the 
ordinary course of its business including, but not 
limited to, word processing software.
     47.  The defendants seized all data stored on 
the seized SJG computers and disks, including, but 
not limited to, the following:
   (a) SJG work product, including drafts of 
forthcoming publications and games;
   (b) Communications from customers and others 
regarding SJG's games, books, and magazines; 
   (c) SJG financial projections;
   (d) SJG contracts;
   (e) SJG correspondence;
   (f) SJG editorial manual, containing 
instructions and procedures for writers and 
editors; 
   (g) SJG address directories, contacts lists, and 
employee information, including the home telephone 
numbers of SJG employees.
     48.  The defendants seized all current drafts 
--  both electronically stored copies and printed 
("hard") copies -- of the book GURPS Cyberpunk, 
which was scheduled to go to the printer later that 
week. 
   (a) GURPS Cyberpunk was part of a series of 
fantasy roleplaying game books published by SJG 
called the Generic Universal Roleplaying System.
   (b) The term "Cyberpunk" refers to a science 
fiction literary genre which became popular in the 
1980s.  The Cyberpunk genre is characterized by the 
fictional interaction of humans with technology and 
the fictional struggle for power between 
individuals, corporations, and government.  One of 
the most popular examples of the Cyberpunk genre is 
William Gibson's critically acclaimed science 
fiction novel Neuromancer, which was published in 
1984.
   (c) GURPS Cyberpunk is a fantasy roleplaying 
game book of the Cyberpunk genre.
   (d) SJG eventually published the book GURPS 
Cyberpunk in 1990.
   (e) The book has been distributed both 
nationally and internationally. 
   (f) To date SJG has sold over 16,000 copies of 
the book.
   (g) The book has been nominated for an Origins 
Award for Best Roleplaying Supplement.
   (h) The book is used in at least one college 
literature course as an example of the Cyberpunk 
genre. 
     49.  The search and seizure exceeded the scope 
of the warrant, in that the searching officers 
seized computer hardware, computer software, data, 
documentation, work product, and correspondence 
that did not constitute evidence, instrumentalities 
or fruits of any crime. 
     50.  The search was conducted in a reckless 
and destructive fashion, in that the searching 
officers caused damage to SJG property and left the 
SJG office and warehouse in disarray.
Post-seizure Retention of Property
     51.  Plaintiffs Jackson and SJG put defendants 
on immediate notice that they had seized the 
current drafts of the about-to-be-published book 
GURPS Cyberpunk and the computer hardware and 
software necessary to operate a BBS and requested 
immediate return of these materials.
     52.  SJG and Jackson made diligent efforts to 
obtain the return of the seized equipment and data, 
including but not limited to, retention of legal 
counsel, numerous telephone calls to defendants 
Cook and Foley by Jackson and SJG counsel, a trip 
to the Austin Secret Service office, and 
correspondence with defendants Cook and Foley and 
with other federal officials.
     53.  On March 2, 1990, Jackson went to the 
Austin office of the Secret Service in an 
unsuccessful attempt to obtain the return of seized 
documents and computer data, including the drafts 
of the forthcoming book GURPS Cyberpunk and the 
software and files stored on the Illuminati BBS.
     54.  On March 2, 1990, the Secret Service 
refused to provide Jackson with the files 
containing current drafts of GURPS Cyberpunk, one 
agent calling the book a "handbook for computer 
crime."
     55.  On March 2, 1990, the Secret Service also 
refused to return copies of the software used to 
run the Illuminati BBS and copies of any of the 
data or communications stored on the BBS.
     56.  In the months following the seizure, 
defendant Cook repeatedly gave Jackson and his 
counsel false assurances that the property of SJG 
would be returned within days.
     57.  In May of 1990, Jackson wrote to Senators 
Philip Gramm and Lloyd Bentsen and Congressman J. 
J. Pickle, regarding the search and seizure 
conducted at SJG and requesting their assistance in 
obtaining the return of SJG property.
     58.  On June 21, 1990, the Secret Service 
returned most, but not all, of the computer 
equipment that had been seized from SJG over three 
months earlier.
     59.  The Secret Service did not return some of 
SJG's hardware and data.
     60.  The Secret Service did not return any of 
the printed drafts of GURPS Cyberpunk.
     61.  In July 3, 1990, letters to Senator 
Bentsen and Congressman J. J. Pickle, Robert R. 
Snow of the United States Secret Service falsely 
stated that all of the items seized from SJG had 
been returned to Jackson.
     62.  In his July 16, 1990, letter to Senator 
Gramm, Bryce L. Harlow of the United States 
Department of Treasuryfalsely stated that all of 
the items seized from SJG had been returned to 
Jackson.
     63.  Through counsel, SJG wrote to defendant 
Foley on July 13, 1990, requesting, inter alia, a 
copy of the application for the search warrant and 
return of the property the government had not 
returned.  A copy of this letter was mailed to 
Defendant Cook.  Though the letter requested a 
response by August 1, 1990, neither defendant 
responded.
     64.  Through counsel, plaintiff SJG again 
wrote to defendant Cook on August 8, 1990, 
requesting, inter alia, a copy of the application 
for the search warrant and return of the property 
the government had not returned.  Copies of this 
letter were sent to other Assistant United States 
Attorneys in Chicago, namely Thomas Durkin, Dean 
Polales, and Michael Shepard.  
     65.  Defendant Cook responded to this request 
with an unsigned letter dated August 10, 1990.  The 
letter enclosed a number of documents that had not 
previously been returned to SJG.  The letter 
further stated that "the application for the search 
warrant is under seal with the United States 
District Court in Texas since it contains 
information relating to an ongoing federal 
investigation."
     66.  On September 17, 1990, the warrant 
affidavit was unsealed by the United States 
Magistrate for the Western District of Texas on the 
motion of the United States Attorney for the 
Northern District of Illinois.
     67.  The United States Attorney's office did 
not provide Jackson, SJG or their counsel with 
notice of its motion to unseal the warrant 
affidavit or of this Court's order granting its 
motion.
Prior Restraint on Publication and Other Damages:
     68.  Defendants' seizure and retention of the 
computer hardware and software used to operate the 
Illuminati BBS prevented and interfered with 
plaintiffs' operation and use of the Illuminati 
BBS, including the following:
   (a) In an attempt to minimize the damage caused 
by defendants' conduct, SJG purchased replacement 
computer hardware and software to operate the 
Illuminati BBS;
   (b) As a result of defendants' conduct, SJG was 
unable to operate or use the Illuminati BBS for 
over a month;
   (c) As a result of defendants' conduct, 
plaintiffs were deprived of the use of the 
Illuminati BBS for over a month;
   (d) Defendants seized and intercepted electronic 
mail in which plaintiffs had a reasonable 
expectation of privacy;
   (e) Users of the BBS were substantially chilled 
in their exercise of their constitutionally 
protected rights of freedom of speech and 
association;
   (f) Some of the data previously available to 
users of the Illuminati BBS was lost or destroyed.
     69.  Defendants' conduct caused a prior 
restraint of the publication of the book GURPS 
Cyberpunk, in that:
   (a) On March 1, 1990, the book GURPS Cyberpunk 
was nearly completed and scheduled to be sent to 
the printer the following week;
   (b) On March 1, 1990, defendants caused the 
illegal seizure of all of the current drafts of 
GURPS Cyberpunk, including both printed drafts and 
electronically stored drafts.
   (c) On March 1, 1990, Defendants caused the 
illegal seizure of electronic communications stored 
on the Illuminati BBS containing comments on GURPS 
Cyberpunk.
   (d) Defendants unreasonably refused for weeks to 
return the electronically stored drafts of GURPS 
Cyberpunk.
   (e) Defendants have not yet returned the printed 
drafts of GURPS Cyberpunk.
   (f) Defendants refused to return electronically 
stored comments regarding GURPS Cyberpunk for over 
three months. 
   (g) By their conduct, defendants prevented SJG 
from delivering GURPS Cyberpunk to the printer on 
schedule, and caused SJG to miss its publication 
deadline.
   (h) As a result of defendants' conduct, and in 
an attempt to minimize damages, SJG and its 
employeesreconstructed and rewrote GURPS Cyberpunk 
from older drafts.
   (i) As a result of defendants' conduct, the 
publication of GURPS Cyberpunk was delayed for six 
weeks.
     70.  Defendants' conduct caused substantial 
delay in the publication and delivery of other SJG 
publications.
     71.  As a result of defendants' conduct, SJG 
suffered substantial financial harm including, but 
not limited to, lost sales, lost credit lines, 
interest on loans, late payment penalties, and 
attorney's fees and costs.
     72.  As a result of defendants' conduct, SJG 
was forced to lay off 8 of its 17 employees. 
     73.  As a result of defendants' conduct, SJG 
suffered damage to its business reputation. 
     74.  As a result of defendants' conduct, SJG 
has suffered loss of, damage to, and conversion of 
computer equipment and data, including, but not 
limited to, the following:
     (a) loss of and damage to computer hardware;
     (b) loss and destruction of seized data;
75.  Defendants have retained copies of data seized 
from SJG.     
     76.  As a result of defendants' conduct, 
plaintiff Steve Jackson has suffered additional 
harm including, but not limited to, lost income, 
damage to professional reputation,humiliation, 
invasion of privacy, deprivation of constitutional 
rights, and emotional distress.
     77.  As a result of defendants' conduct, 
plaintiffs McCoy, Milliken, and O'Sullivan have 
suffered additional harm including, but not limited 
to, damages resulting from the seizure of their 
private electronic mail and the interference with, 
and temporary shut down of, the Illuminati forum 
for speech and association, deprivation of their 
constitutional rights, invasion of their privacy, 
and emotional distress.

COUNT I:
PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT OF 1980,
42 U.S.C.  2000aa et seq
Against the United States Secret Service
and the United States of America

     78.  The allegations in paragraphs 1-77 are 
incorporated herein by reference.
     79.  At all relevant times, SJG and its 
employees were persons "reasonably believed to have 
a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, 
book, broadcast, or other similar form of public 
communication, in or affecting interstate or 
foreign commerce" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.  
2000aa(a) and (b).
     80.  At all relevant times, SJG and its 
employees possessed work product and documentary 
materials in connection with a purpose to 
disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, 
broadcast, or other similar form of 
publiccommunication, in or affecting interstate or 
foreign commerce.
     81.  Defendants caused the submission of an 
application for a warrant to search the business 
premises of SJG and to seize work product materials 
therefrom, in violation of 42 U.S.C.  2000aa, in 
that:
   (a) The Foley affidavit did not inform the 
Magistrate that SJG and its employees were persons 
"reasonably believed to have a purpose to 
disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, 
broadcast, or other similar form of public 
communication, in or affecting interstate or 
foreign commerce" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.  
2000aa(a) and (b).
   (b)  The Foley affidavit did not inform the 
Magistrate that SJG and its employees possessed 
work product materials and documentary materials in 
connection with a purpose to disseminate to the 
public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other 
similar form of public communication, in or 
affecting interstate or foreign commerce.
   (c) The Foley affidavit did not establish that 
any of the exceptions to the statutory prohibition 
of searches and seizures set out in 42 U.S.C.  
2000aa(a) and (b) existed. 
     82.  Defendants caused the March 1, 1990, 
search of the business premises of SJG and seizure 
of work product anddocumentary materials therefrom 
in violation of 42 U.S.C.  2000aa et seq.
     83.  Defendants Cook, Foley, and Golden were 
federal officers and employees acting within the 
scope or under color of federal office or 
employment.
     84.  Defendant Kluepfel acted in concert with 
federal agents under color of federal office.
     85.  Plaintiffs SJG, Jackson, McCoy, Milliken, 
and O'Sullivan are all persons aggrieved by 
defendants' conduct, having suffered damages, 
attorney's fees, and costs, as a direct result of 
defendants' conduct.
     86.  The United States of American and the 
United States Secret Service are liable to 
plaintiffs for damages, attorney's fees and costs 
caused by defendants' conduct.

COUNT II:
FIRST AMENDMENT
Against Defendants Cook, Foley, Golden & Kluepfel

     87.  The allegations in paragraphs 1-86 are 
incorporated herein by reference.
     88.  Defendants violated plaintiffs' rights to 
freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and 
freedom of association as guaranteed by the First 
Amendment, in that:
   (a) At all relevant times SJG was a publisher of 
books, magazines, and games protected by the First 
Amendment;
   (b) At all relevant times SJG was the operator 
of a BBS that was a forum for speech and 
association protected by the First Amendment;
   (c) At all relevant times, plaintiffs SJG, 
Jackson, McCoy, Milliken, and O'Sullivan used the 
Illuminati BBS for speech and association protected 
by the First Amendment;
   (d) At all relevant times, plaintiff SJG used 
computers to publish books, magazines, and games 
and to operate the Illuminati BBS;
   (e) The search, seizure, and retention of SJG 
work product--both printed and electronically 
stored--caused a prior restraint on SJG 
publications in violation of plaintiffs' First 
Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the 
press;
   (f) The search and seizure of the Illuminati BBS 
constituted a prior restraint on plaintiffs' 
exercise of their First Amendment rights of freedom 
of speech, of the press, and of association;
   (g) The seizure and retention of computer 
hardware and software used by SJG to publish books, 
magazines, and games violated plaintiffs' rights to 
freedom of speech and of the press;
   (h) The seizure and retention of computer 
hardware and software used by SJG to operate a BBS 
violatedplaintiffs' First Amendment rights to 
freedom of speech, of the press, and of 
association.
     89.  Defendants knew or reasonably should have 
known that their conduct violated plaintiffs' 
clearly established First Amendment rights of 
freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and 
freedom of association.
     90.  Defendants acted with intent to violate, 
or with reckless indifference to, plaintiffs' 
clearly established First Amendment rights to 
freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and 
freedom of association.
     91.  Defendants Cook, Foley, and Golden acted 
as federal agents and under color of federal law.
     92.  Defendant Kluepfel acted in concert with 
the federal defendants under color of federal law.
     93.  As a direct result of the defendants' 
conduct, plaintiffs have suffered damages.
     
COUNT III:
FOURTH AMENDMENT
Against Defendants Cook, Foley, Golden, and 
Kluepfel

     94.  The allegations in paragraphs 1-93 are 
incorporated herein by reference.
     95.  The defendants, by their actions, 
violated plaintiffs' clearly established right to 
be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as 
guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United 
States Constitution, in that:
   (a) Plaintiffs SJG and Jackson had a reasonable 
expectation of privacy in the business premises of 
SJG and in all SJG work product, SJG records, and 
SJG documents kept there, including in all data 
stored in the computers at SJG;
   (b) All plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation 
of privacy in private electronic communications 
stored on the Illuminati BBS at SJG;
   (c) The search and seizure at SJG games was a 
general search;
   (d) The search and seizure at SJG was not 
authorized by a valid warrant particularly 
describing the place to be searched and the things 
to be seized;
   (e) The search and seizure at SJG was conducted 
without probable cause to believe that evidence of 
criminal activity would be found at SJG;
   (f) The search and seizure at SJG was based on 
information that was not shown to be current;
   (g) Defendants' warrant application was 
materially false and misleading, and was submitted 
by defendants with knowledge of its false and 
misleading nature or with reckless disregard for 
its truth or falsity. 
     96.  The defendants knew, or reasonably should 
have known, that their conduct violated plaintiffs' 
clearly established constitutional right to be free 
from unreasonable searches and seizures.
     97.  The defendants acted with intent to 
violate, or with reckless indifference to, 
plaintiffs' clearly established Fourth Amendment 
rights.
     98.  Defendants Cook, Foley, and Golden acted 
as federal agents and under color of federal law.
     99.  Defendant Kluepfel acted in concert with 
the federal defendants and under color of federal 
law.
     100.  As a direct result of the defendants' 
actions, plaintiffs suffered damages, attorney's 
fees and costs.

COUNT IV:
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT,
 18 U.S.C.  2707
Seizure of Stored Electronic Communications 
Against All Defendants

     101.  The allegations in paragraphs 1-100 are 
incorporated herein by reference. 
     102.  At all times relevant times, plaintiff 
SJG was the provider of an electronic communication 
service within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.  2510(15) 
and 2707.
     103.  At all relevant times, plaintiffs SJG, 
Jackson, McCoy, Milliken, and O'Sullivan were 
subscribers to or customers of the electronic 
communication service provided by SJG within the 
meaning of 18 U.S.C.  2510(15) and 2707.
     104.  At all relevant times, plaintiffs had 
electronic communications in electronic storage on 
the communicationservice provided by SJG that were 
not accessible to the general public.
     105.  Defendants applied for a warrant to 
search and seize the computer operating the 
electronic communication service provided by SJG 
and all data stored thereon, but failed to inform 
the Magistrate that the computer contained stored 
electronic communications that were not accessible 
to the general public.
     106.  Defendants, acting without a valid 
warrant, required SJG to disclose the contents of 
electronic communications that were not accessible 
to the general public and that were in electronic 
storage for 180 days or less, in violation of 18 
U.S.C.  2703(a).
     107.  Defendants disrupted the normal 
operations of the communication service operated by 
SJG without compensation to plaintiffs in violation 
of 18 U.S.C.  2706(a).
     108.  Defendants Cook, Foley, and Golden acted 
as federal agents and under color of federal law.
     109.  Defendant Kluepfel acted in concert with 
the federal defendants and under color of federal 
law.
     110.  Defendants acted knowingly and 
intentionally.
     111.  Defendants did not act in good faith.
     112.  Plaintiffs were aggrieved by defendants' 
conduct, and suffered damages, attorney's fees and 
costs.

COUNT V:
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT,
 18 U.S.C.  2510 et seq.
    Interception of Electronic Communications
Against All Defendants

     113.  The allegations in paragraphs 1-112 are 
incorporated herein by reference.
	114.  Defendants intercepted, disclosed, or 
intentionally used plaintiffs' electronic 
communications in violation of 18 U.S.C.  2510 et 
seq and 2520.
     115.  Defendants intentionally intercepted, 
endeavored to intercept, or procured others to 
intercept or endeavor to intercept, plaintiffs' 
electronic communications in violation of 18 U.S.C.  
2511(1)(a).
     116.  Defendants did not comply with the 
standards and procedures prescribed in 18 U.S.C.  
2518.
     117.  The warrant application was not 
authorized by the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney 
General, Associate Attorney General, or any 
Assistant Attorney general, acting Assistant 
Attorney General, or any Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General in the Criminal Division specially 
designated by the Attorney General, in violation of 
18 U.S.C.  2516.
     118.  Defendants Cook, Foley, and Golden acted 
as federal agents and under color of federal law.
     119.  Defendant Kluepfel acted in concert with 
the federal defendants and under color of federal 
law.
     120.  Defendants did not act in good faith.
     121.  Defendants did not compensate plaintiffs 
for reasonable expenses incurred by defendants' 
seizure of the Illuminati BBS, in violation of 18 
U.S.C.  2518(4).
     122.  As a direct result of defendants' 
conduct, plaintiffs suffered damages, attorney's 
fees and costs.
Prayers for Relief
     WHEREFORE, plaintiffs SJG, Jackson, McCoy, 
Milliken, and O'Sullivan pray that this Court:
     1.  Assume jurisdiction of this case.
     2.  Enter judgment against defendants and in 
favor of plaintiffs.
     3.  Enter an order requiring defendants to 
return all property and data seized from the 
premises of SJG, and all copies of such data, to 
SJG.
     4.  Award plaintiffs damages.
     5.  Award plaintiffs punitive and liquidated 
damages.
     6.  Award plaintiffs all costs incurred in the 
prosecution of this action, including reasonable 
attorney's fees.
     7.  Provide such additional relief as may 
appear to the Court to be just.





PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A JURY TRIAL ON ALL CLAIMS 
TRIABLE BY JURY
Dated: May 1, 1991


                          Respectfully submitted
                          by their attorneys,
  


                               
_____________________________
                               Sharon L. Beckman
                               Harvey A. Silverglate
                               Andrew Good
                               SILVERGLATE & GOOD
                               89 Broad St., 14th floor
                               Boston, MA  02110
                               (617) 542-6663
                               Fax: (617) 451-6971


                           
		                     
____________________________
                               Eric M. Lieberman
                               Nicholas E. Poser
                               Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard,
                                 Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C.
                               740 Broadway, at Astor Place
                               New York, NY  10003-9518
                               (212) 254-1111
                               Fax: (212) 674-4614



					
	___________________________
						R. James George, Jr.
						Graves, Dougherty,
 						  Hearon & Moody
						2300 NCNB Tower
						515 Congress Street
						Austin, Texas  78701
						(512) 480-5600
						Fax:  (512) 478-1976



TUCoPS is optimized to look best in Firefox® on a widescreen monitor (1440x900 or better).
Site design & layout copyright © 1986-2014 AOH