From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 07:29:32 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: [noise] Re: Do you feel lucky, punk?
In-Reply-To: <m0twMLA-00093EC@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960312014348.11349F-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



This will be my last comment on this thread.

On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 09:59 PM 3/11/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:
> >On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:
> >
> >> At 05:54 PM 3/11/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:

> >My issue was with your application of the cite and decisions to the 
> >pending bill.  
> 
> You keep saying this kind of thing, repeatedly, but you don't back it up 
> with a contrary argument.

Why not tell me why you didn't cite rules of statuatory construction, or 
the merit of looking at legislative history?  I'm hardly going to 
spend 4 hours of legal research to rebuke what is a patently flawed 
"legal" opinion.  Long time members of the list will know already that I 
am quite generous with my legal research when a legitimate legal problem 
arises.  My patience does not extend to upstarts who's knowledge of law 
is limited to complaining about how legal scholars and Supreme Court 
Justices have their head up their asses.

> >My issue was, again, with regard to your choice of cites, 
> 
> Ah!  You simply didn't like me using that particular atrocious SC decision 
> to suggest that we can't trust judges and courts in general!  

You dismiss 7 learned people quite quickly.  I know it's tempting to be 
superior to them, but as far as I can tell, you haven't even taken a 
judicial process class in undergrad.

> >The "above paragaph," incidently, doesn't even rise to the level of court 
> >dicta, but is a abstract of dicta by a court commentator.  Using such 
> >authority to back a legal conclusion (especially when applied to an 
> >entirely seperate legal area) is twisted at best, and dangerous at worst.
> 
> Let's suppose we agree that "George Will" is a "court commentator."  Suppose 
> further that he, more or less, says "this decision sucks."  Because it DOES 
> suck.

This illustrates my problem with you, and your writings to the list.  This 
isn't the opinion of a noted legal scholar.  It's not the opinion of a 
renound attorney, or court observer.  It's not even the opinion of a law 
student.  The bottom line is that you just don't know what you're talking 
about.  You are wasting the list's time, my time, and, incidently, your time.

> than I relate) should be of interest.  And most people of ordinary levels of 
> intelligence can recognize that yes, the decision DOES suck.

Excepting 5 surpreme court justices, the prosecution, and hundreds of 
years of American Jurisprudence.  Sure, you're a more legitimate judge of 
decisions.  Really it's just that you don't like the decision, and have 
latched on to anything to justify your dislike with the illusion of 
intelligence and knowledge, including a newspaper article in a local paper.

  And George 
> Will, who has certainly NOT become successful as a commentator by boring the 
> reader, understands that this decision is of interest to enough people to 
> have it occupy one of his columns for a day.

What the hell does this have to do with your long stretch in applying it 
to the Leahy bill?

> Remember, one of the basic assumptions that any supporter of the Leahy bill 
> could be making is that it will be interpreted INTELLIGENTLY by courts.

Wrong.  The assumption is that the rules of statuatory construction and a 
long history of weighing legislative history will be used in intrepreting 
the statute.

I could go on for paragraphs about how this basic error on your part 
demonstrates your misunderstanding of the divisons of labor between 
the Legislative and Judiciary, and that your really calling for an active 
Judiciary that disregards law and imposes its own view in the face of 
obvious legislative intent, and go on longer about the importance of 
using cannons of construction to insure consistancy, but none of that 
would change the basic fact that you just don't know what you are talking 
about, and that arguing with you is like talking to a soap box preacher.  
You don't really care for logic.

  If 
> it is obvious to most of the rest of us that those lunatics can't even make 
> the correct decision about a woman's half-interest in a common automobile, 

Your "logic" has become a campaign speech.

> The fact that you may not _like_ me bringing up a contemporaneous example 
> where the SC stuck their collective heads firmly and completely up their 
> respective asses is irrelevant.  If anything, it shows that you feel the law 
> is and should be above the heads of the average individual, or even the 
> UN-average, intelligent individual who regularly reads editorials in their 
> local newspaper.

No, I just feel it's probably beyond someone who couldn't name 2 cannons 
of statuatory intrepretation to rant on for paragraphs about the impact 
of a supreme court decision on a pending statute.

> 
> Such elitism is disgusting.
> 

I'm not the one calling the Supreme Court a pile of idiots.

> >  Your appeal (what of it there is) is based 
> >entirely on skewing meanings, using critiques of dicta, and generally 
> >applying inflamatory language taken out of context in a manner which suits 
> >you.  I don't think I'm off base calling it "twisted."
> 
> "Inflammatory language"?  The real "inflammatory language" occurs every time 
> a court makes yet another outrageous decision such as the ones you are 
> weakly attempting (and miserably failing) to defend.

I'm not defending the decision at all.  Simply pointing out that it's 
connection to the Leahy bill is non-existant, and that you are a non-entity
when it comes to legal analysis.

> I notice you don't provide an alternative competing interpretation, either 
> of my conclusions or those of George Will.  So how are we to know what 
> "twisted" is if  you can't clearly show something which is "untwisted"?

I'm not interested in the opinion, or Will's explanation of what it 
meant.  I am interested in bringing some sanity to the list by filtering 
out the fluff and bullshit that results when people who know nothing 
about legislation or lawmaking proport to be experts.

I'm sure you, however, would be quite willing to allow a pre-med student 
preform your bypass operation.

> >Again, its application to the bill is what I question.  All of which 
> >throws your understanding of law, dicta, holdings, jurisprudence, and 
> >rhetoric into question.  What you should have cited was some statuatory 
> >construction and legislative history cases, not forfeiture law.  But how 
> >could you be expected to know this?
> 
> I chose my example to display the foolishness of the Supreme Court,

Considering you have never read the opinion, or the briefs of the 
respective parties, and are relying on only the (perhaps legal, perhaps 
not) opinion of a newspaper writer, I think you're on fairly thin ice 
even without my help.

 as well 
> as each and every one of the courts below it that did not properly dispose 
> of that Bennis case.  You find this disturbing.  But it's applicable to ANY 
> law that may someday rely upon a SC decision to overturn or uphold.  
> Anyone considering supporting the Leahy bill had better understand this.  
> Naturally, you want to cover it up.

You assume I support the Leahy Bill.  Quote me.  Where do you find my 
support?  Because I think you should be taken with the grain of salt your 
legal ignorance obviously deserves?  I could care less which side you are 
on, but I'm hardly going to let your ignorance be taken for anything but 
what it is.

> >> What, then, was the point of sending me the note, as well as wasting 
> >> bandwidth on CP to share your unhappiness?
> >
> >Distribution of reputation capital (or in this case, negative reputation 
> >capital).  I believe I also wanted to make a point (in 1,200 bytes) about 
> >the utility (or lack thereof) of your article (10,500 bytes) on this list.
> 
> I'd glad to see you distributing YOUR "negative reputation capital."  Why 
> not do a better job for yourself and make it look like you are actually more 
> familiar with the legal system than the rest of us are (which shouldn't be 
> hard, if you have the credentials), and challenge us with an alternative 
> explanation of the facts I (and George Will) describe?

1>  I have often lent my legal expertise to the list.
2>  I don't care what you or George Will think the seizure decision 
means, only that it has nothing to do with the Leahy bill.
3>  Challenging you is like falling off a log.

> In other words, stop just saying I'm wrong and start DEMONSTRATING it.

Why not demonstrate you're right first Mr. Bell?  Tell us all how the 
latest decision will impact Leahy bill in terms a bit more specific than 
"The supreme court is stupid, so you're going to get screwed."  Cite 
provisions.  Show us why the dicta you use is important rather than 
fluff.  What was the holding in the seizure case?  Do you even know?

It's easy for me to say "The latest Supreme Court Decision is going to 
make currency ILLEGAL!  LOOK OUT!  HIDE YOUR DOUGH!"  However, this does 
not mean I can expect every legal expert on the list to spend hours going 
over the opinion, and refuting endlessly the raving antics of my lunacy.  
The burden is on the presentor to make the connection.  You're logic 
seems to look mostly like this.

There was a court decision.
Mr. Will is a popular newspaper writer.
therefore Mr. Will is qualified to intrepret the decision.
Mr. Will says some disparaging things about the decision.
threfore The Decision is BAD.
The decision has to do with seizure of jointly owned property.
Remailer messages are jointly owned property.
therefore the decision must apply to remailers.
Since the property in the decision was seized,
and since the Leahy bill has something to say about encryption,
and since the seizure decision means that the supreme court has their 
head up their ass,
therefore remailer messages and remailers WILL BE SEIZED.

If there is a more logical chain here, I'd love to hear it.

> you can.  Convince us that you're not just an elitist snob

I am an elitist snob.  Who want's a passive attorney fighting for them?  
I worked hard for my degrees, my post-graduate work, and the Bar.  I think I 
have earned a bit of ego for my years of hell.  If nothing else, I have 
taken 23 hours more of aba accredited legislation courses from a top 10 
U.S. law school than you have.

> Jim Bell
> 
> jimbell@pacifier.com

---
My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information