THREATENING COMMUNICATIONS STATUTE EXPLAINED

Kurt William Havelock had this plan. He planned to arrive at the Super Bowl in Glendale in 2008 and start shooting people. His goal was to commit “suicide by cop. ¹”

His first stop on Super Bowl Sunday was a post office near the stadium. From there he mailed six identical envelopes addressed to The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Phoenix New Times, the Associated Press; theshizz.org and azpunk.com. The last two being music related websites. The “media packages” as he called them contained “a five-page ‘econo-political’ manifesto entitled ‘Karma Leveller: Bad Thoughts on a Beautiful Day’ (the ‘Manifesto’); a brief account of a recent incident involving Havelock, faux pipe bombs, and the police of Tempe, Arizona; an apologetic letter to ‘the Police,’ directing them to his car, ‘which would be parked in Glendale somewhere around the stadium, and imploring that the police ‘not take their hatred for him out on his dogs’; and another letter comprised of self-described ‘random blatherings.’”

After mailing the packets he went to the stadium where he got cold feet and thankfully did not shoot anyone. Instead he called his parents and arranged to meet them and his fiancee. When he told them the story they suggested that they go to the police. The Tempe police could not find any crime committed in Tempe and they called in the FBI. Havelock was indicted and convicted on six counts of of mailing threatening communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c).

On appeal he argued that he was not guilty since the media packet were not directed to individuals but instead to corporations. Normally a corporation is considered a person unless the intent of Congress is otherwise. Section 876(c) states in pertinent part

Whoever knowingly so deposits or causes to be delivered [by the Postal Service according to the direction thereon], any communication with or without a name or designating mark subscribed thereto, addressed to any other person and containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of the addressee or of another . . .

The government argued that the jury could consider the contents of the letter to determine the addressee of the letter and the dissent by Judge Graber argued that when a letter is sent to a corporation the addressee is whoever opens the letter. But the majority supported Havelock’s position that the addressee must be a natural person and must be named on the front of the envelope. It found that the common meaning of the language in the statute which says that the offending communication must be addressed to a person indicates that it means a natural person and not a corporation. Therefore the majority reversed the conviction.