From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 20:38:40 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
In-Reply-To: <m0u2lXz-0008yYC@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960329165520.15388D-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 05:32 AM 3/29/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:
> >On Thu, 28 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:
> >
> >> At 03:46 PM 3/28/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:
> 
> >You clearly don't understand.  You are an ass making an assumption that a 
> >court cares or believes that the witness can actually produce the 
> >requested information or not.  Fines tend to be imposed regardless.
> 
> Bullets don't care that a judge was justified in his decisions, either.  

God I hope you keep talking like this.  The list might not have to endure 
you anymore unless you get a cushy prison cell with internet hookups.

> Ultimately, your repeated argument is simply, "The legal system can be 
> abused by those who work in it."

I wouldn't call fines imposed on a third party who clearly was complicit 
in the destruction of material evidence to a proceeding "abuse."

It's abuse because you can't get away with your little scheme?  Eh?

Mr. Bell can't commit his crime with impunity, so the justice system is a 
sham?

  I don't challenge this claim, in fact my 
> position depends on its truth; my assertion  is that the current legal situation is 
> out of the control of people faithful to the meaning of the Constitution, 
> and has been so for a long time.  One of the main reasons I promote a 
> de-facto (and unofficial) death penalty for recalcitrant politicians and 
> other government employees is because the traditional "checks and balances" 
> system seems to no longer be working for the interests of the average citizen.

Yadda yadda yadda.

> 
> >> And in any case, I consider it highly doubtful that anybody would contract 
> >> with an escrow agent and identify himself by name
> >
> >The same way no one creates Panamanian companies with their own name.  So 
> >what?  Third parties are still fined heavily.
> 
> Any specific examples?

Sure, several.  See my large note on the subject of asset protection.

  No?  I thought so!  In any case, if "third parties" 
> are "fined heavily," that is even more justification for setting up a method 
> to deter out-of-control courts.

Mr. Bell, go make yourself a sovereign or something.

> >>It would be a simple 
> >> matter to operate "escrow agents," just glorified data-holders, who would 
> >> receive data anonymously and send it out just as anonymously, to the person 
> >> who can identify themselves via some sort of encrypted ID system.
> >
> >And simpler for courts to fine them out of existance (which happened to 
> >several banks, trust companies and agents in Cayman and Panama.
> 
> I guess you really don't realize that every claim you make demolishes the 
> justification for your obvious hostility to a system which prevents exactly 
> the kind of abuses you list.  (Although it really isn't clear whether you 
> would classify them as "abuses.")

My hostility is for a system that allows mob mentality and murder run the 
streets like a bad day in Beruit.

Again, I don't consider fines assessed to deal with obviously complicit 
third parties to be abuse.  Your problem is you can't deal with 
authority without calling for murder.  Become an expatriate if you don't 
like the U.S.  Move to e.g., East Turkey.

> >They need only suspect or have reason to suspect it might be exculpatory.
> _                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^
> Sloppy word usage.  I think you meant, "incriminating."  Typical for you.

Actually I should have said "material."

> >Practically speaking this means convincing a judge.  Not hard when the 
> >words "offshore holding company" are mentioned in a brief or hearing.
> >
> >> In short, you need to comprehend what you're responding to before you 
> >> express your opinions.  You're living down to my expectations.
> >
> >In short, go to law school, then try to talk about legal issues.
> 
> In this day and in this country, "going to law school" is basically 
> synonymous with "learn to get along with the current legal system."  It 
> should have been obvious long ago that I don't consider the current legal 
> system to be worth living with.

Suicide is always an option.

I don't much like the system in the United States either.  But there are 
two ways around it.  Ways that work, and ways that don't.

Encouraging random murder and mob justice is, in my view, in the second 
field.

---
My preferred 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