From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 02:26:37 +0800
To: Black Unicorn <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Subject: Re: "Contempt" charges likely to increase
Message-ID: <m0u870T-0008xMC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 07:59 PM 4/12/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:

>> >I might add that the Cayman Islands are full of trust companies with 
>> >provisions which forbid the disclosure of data to a client who is 
>> >coerced.  A law on the books refuses to recognize "consent" orders made 
>> >under judicial compulsion.  This would give the appearance of total 
>> >unavailability of evidence and suggest the futility of contempt 
>> >charges.  Yet courts have still, and with no small measure of success, 
>> >imposed sanctions on witnesses so protected.
>> 
>> 	What measure of success? Getting the data, or locking up the witness?
>> 	-Allen
>
>Getting the data.  If the IRS or a private plaintiff wants it bad enough, 
>they can usually get their hands on it, or at least find out where it is.
>
>The government of the United States doesn't play "fair" when they want 
>something.

But if the government of the United States does play "fair," then why can we 
not play "fair" and kill their agents who violate what we feel is our 
rights?  After all, the government is merely the representative of the 
people (at least in theory!) and it 'must' follow the rules (laws, 
Constitution, etc).  To whatever extent it exceeds those limits, and to 
whatever extent the public can't get justice to prevent those violations, 
why would the public be obligated to accept them?

To believe otherwise is to believe that the government has some sort of 
special dispensation to violate the law.  I don't believe this; it wouldn't 
surprise me to hear that you do, however.  Which is it?

Jim Bell