1994-09-21 - Re: On the crime bill and remailers

Header Data

From: Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 862647dd6a3e14cbbd415b3e76fbc5dde034317601c67a18f3707519bf8cd41c
Message ID: <199409210004.RAA16538@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-09-21 00:04:46 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 20 Sep 94 17:04:46 PDT

Raw message

From: Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 94 17:04:46 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: On the crime bill and remailers
Message-ID: <199409210004.RAA16538@jobe.shell.portal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From: greg@ideath.goldenbear.com (Greg Broiles)
> In general, scienter/mens rea requirements mean that you must have intended
> a particular action (or failure to act) - the question is about your 
> understanding of the facts of a particular situation, not the legal status
> of a particular situation. Given your example, it's illegal to drive
> across the border, knowing your pickup contains ammunition - whether or
> not you believe your actions are legal. It's not illegal to drive across
> the border with a box full of ammunition if you thought you were carrying
> a box full of clothes.
> 
> The old saw "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is basically accurate.
> Good-faith reliance on legal advice from competent counsel won't even
> save you. (but it might get you a malpractice judgement/settlement). 

I don't know how true this is in general, but my research into the
arms export question indicated otherwise.  Here is part of a posting I
sent to CP some time last year concerning a case in which the defendant
did in fact drive to Mexico with a truck load of ammunition:

> In U.S. v Lizarraga-Lizarraga, the appellate court wrote (in 541 F2d 826),
> 
> "At trial and on appeal, the defendant admits that he purchased the
> ammunition and that he intended to export it to Mexico.  His defense is
> bsed on the contention that he had no knowledge that his conduct violated
> the law.  Hence, the appellant claims that to be found guilty under
> 22 U.S.C. 1934 [the predecessor to 22 U.S.C. 2778], the government must
> prove that he intended to violate the statute....  We agree, and hold
> that he was entitled to a specific intent instruction.  Accordingly, we
> reverse his conviction and remand for a new trial."
> 
> The court discusses several reasons for concluding that "willfully"
> implies a need to show specific intent, among them that the articles on
> the Munitions List are not obviously illegal to export, finally concluding:
> 
> "Accordingly, we hold that in order for a defendant to be found guilty of
> exporting under 22 U.S.C. 1934, the government must prove that the
> defendant voluntarily and intentionally violated a known legal duty not
> to export the proscribed articles, and the jury should be so instructed."

Perhaps the arms export laws are worded differently than some others
and so the more stringent rules apply.

Hal





Thread