From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 22:46:15 +0800
To: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Subject: Re: What can the judge do to me?
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960416105311.00ce803c@panix.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960416065243.15421B-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 16 Apr 1996, Duncan Frissell wrote:

> At 07:36 PM 4/12/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
> 
> >I think it's clear, the court literally spells this out, that holding 
> >a witness indefinitely until he complies with court orders is within 
> >the discretion of a judge.  Compelling through sanctions the 
> >production of a "key" (though I'm not sure a crypto key is directly 
> >contemplated) is likewise clearly permitted.
> 
> In practice though, two years seems to be the limit.  That was the duration
> for Dr. Elizabeth Morgan and for the guy in SF in the mid 70's who won the
> Irish Sweepstakes and refused to repatriate his winnings so they could be
> taxed.  Is anyone aware of a contempt sentence longer than two years?  If no
> examples exist, then two years is the limit.

I seem to remember a pair, let me look.

> 
> There is always more bluff than reality in enforcement.  See the
> Transactional Records Clearing House (http://www.trac.syr.edu/) for real
> info on federal criminal referrals and filings.  Total tax fraud and evasion
> filings were circa 1000 in 1994, for example.

Notice that those do not include deficancies which were discovered, 
assessed, and settled without charges.

Doesn't make any difference if it's bluff or reality if you can't or wont 
call.

> DCF
> 
> 
> 

---
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
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com