Many of us thought Lori Drew should have never been tried, not because she is not a monster but because the law used, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, was not applicable.

The Court in California agreed reversing the jury verdict on Friday August 28, 2009 stating that the statute Drew was tried under did not extend to cyberbullies. The statute used was the one for unauthorized use of a computer used in interconnection to other computers. In other words because it crossed state lines and My Space.com was located in California and Drew and the girl she harassed was in Missouri the federal government decided to use the unauthorized use of a computer to cross state lines.

Sadly this is done all of the time, how many of us have been the victim of cyber bullies? However, the law used stating that Drew had violated the TOS on MySpace.com was a lame attempt in my opinion to try someone under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act statute that did not exist and did not reflect the cyber bully of Drew but the fact it crossed state line.

The Lori Drew case has caused states across the nation and a federal statute is pending that to cyber bully is a crime by itself.

The law Drew was tried under CFAA 18 U. S. C. which is used to prosecute those who access say vulnerability of an email server and knowing what you were doing is wrong or a reasonable person would know it was one.

Like MySpace.com and many other sites we also require you to acknowledge out TOS, [Terms of Service], and Privacy policy while signing up to join the main part of the site. I feel this is going to become more prevalent and used more to avoid just the “I never read it, never saw the separate link at the bottom of the page and you can’t prove I read it” defense.

Now most sites has the TOS and the violations and in which state the applicable laws will apply as part of the actual registration of a site.

So should the government have wasted the money to try Lori Drew in this time of economic hardship? Did the prosecution of Drew cause a spot light on cyberstalking and cyberbulling? If it did that then perhaps it was money well spent but in my opinion most states saw the current laws had not caught up to technology and passed laws addressing these issues.

Yes we need to keep laws current and up to date in this new electronic frontier, but the statute used to try Lori Drew was never designed to be used for cyberbullies. The federal government has it hands full on “real” unauthorized used of computers or exploiting the vulnerability of serves. Most of those cases all ready find their way to file 13 because of lack of funds for man hours and prosecution.

Lori Drew will have to live with what she did and sadder still so will her daughter. That is a mighty burden to have to carry through life, not to be mention the disdain people will always show to Drew and her family.

So should the government have tried Lori Drew on the federal statute, CFAA 18 U. S. C., that was never meant to be used that way? Did prosecution shine a light on the newest form of school yard bullies?

Share your thoughts with us and here is a list of final documents on the USA vs. Lori Drew case, which the government by he way can appeal the dismissal or choose to retry her on the one felony count the jury was deadlock on, should the government do either of this or settle for the spotlight this case created and the laws changed because of the case?

The final documents in the Lori Drew Conviction overturned by the Judge in the Southern District of California:

May 3, 2009 Lori Drew Sentencing Brief in case her case was not dismissed under Rule 26 as pending before the Central District California federal court.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2386.

May 3, 2009 Lori Drew Exhibit A filed with Sentencing Brief in case her case was not dismissed under Rule 26 as pending before the Central District California federal court.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2387.

May 6, 2009 USA Brief and Memorandum of law in the Lori Drew case in the event the Judge does not dismiss the case under Lori Drew filing of Rule 26 as pending before the Central District California federal court.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2388.

May 7, 2009 Court Order allowing Lori Drew to file a Supplemental sentencing brief under seal in the event the Judge does not dismiss the case under Lori Drew filing of Rule 26 as pending before the Central District California federal court.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2389.

May 11, 2009 USA Response and Memorandum of law in Response to the Supplemental filing of Memorandum of law by Lori Drew case in the event the Judge does not dismiss the case under Lori Drew filing of Rule 26 as pending before the Central District California federal court.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2390.

May 13, 2009 Lori Drew Response to USA Sentencing Brief and Memorandum of law in the event the Judge does not dismiss the case under Lori Drew filing of Rule 26 as pending before the Central District California federal court.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2391.

May 15, 2009 Lori Drew’s Application to remain out on bond pending the appeal of her conviction in the event the Judge does not dismiss the case under Lori Drew filing of Rule 26 as pending before the Central District California federal court.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2392.

May 18, 2009 Notes of Court Minutes of hearing on argument to dismiss by Lori Drew’s conviction and taking victim impact statements and setting sentencing date of July 2, 2009.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2393.

July 2, 2009 Notes of Court Minutes of hearing on argument to dismiss by Lori Drew’s conviction and court ruled that it would probably dismiss on Rule 26 and held off on sentencing until Court read Rule 26 Briefs.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2394.

August 5, 2009 Lori Drew Motion for access to computer for a new job she was offered and Court granting it while writing the Memorandum to grant Lori Drew’s dismissal under Rule 26 Motion.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2395.

August 28, 2009 Court Order over tuning Jury decision on all misdemeanor convicts and dismissing all charges on Lori Drew.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2396.

©Rose Turner
September 2, 2009
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this blog article are the opinions and sole property of the blog site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Tags: ACLU, CFAA 18 U. S. C., Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Cyberbully Lori Drew, Fedral Court Central District for California, Fox Interactive Media, H. Dean Steward Esq., High Profile Trials, Honorable George H. Wu, Jae Sung MySpace.com, Jerry Shreeves, Josh Evans, Judge George H. Wu, Judge Wu, Lori Drew, M.T.M., MySpace, MySpace.com, MySpace.com Privacy Policy, MySpace.com Terms of Service, MySpace.com TOS, MySpace.com User Agreement, MySpace.com website, O'Fallon Missouri, Orin S. Kerr Esq., Police Officer Lutz, Sarah Drew, Tina Meier