From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 17:47:02 +0800
Subject: Re: Leahy and Mrs. Bemmis (now that's a subject line)
In-Reply-To: <m0twEkp-00091lC@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960312003152.11349E-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 11:24 AM 3/11/96 -0500, A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security wrote:
> 
> >The Leahy bill is flawed in two areas. Sent a message with proposed wording
> >to Sen. Leahy via his web page but have not gotten a response. Have a bad
> >habit of reading laws without thought since this is how LEA and prosecutors
> >are told to enforce them - as written, not as believed. If an area is
> >vague, a court is required to decide how to interpret it, not LEA. If badly
> >written *everyone* loses.
> 
> Unfortunately, this is not the way CREATIVE prosecutors enforce laws.  
> _THEY_ try to be imaginative, "pushing the envelope" as it were, and expect 
> the courts to stop them.  Sadly, those same courts often have ex-prosecutors 
> as judges, people who aren't particularly inclined to dissuade the abuse of 
> laws.  (exceptions exist, obviously.)

Mr. Bell seems to me, based on what I have observed of his legal 
"analysis" in past, entirely unqualified to be speaking to these issues.
I hope readers will take his comments with a grain of salt, and keep this 
in mind.

> 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