From: Jonathon Blake <grafolog@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 23:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: [NOISE] [Wager: Seeming Resolution]
In-Reply-To: <m0uCJ4L-000916C@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9604250600.A21477-0100000@netcom8>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


	Jim:

On Wed, 24 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:

> >	for accepting Black Unicorn's Wager.  
> At the very least, he'd have to IDENTIFY himself at least to the extent that 
> I have done so.  Name, address, telephone number, etc.  

	One way to weasel out of it.  

> >> the examples quoted in that SC decision, which were cited as exceptions to 
> >> 5th amendment protections in the US, all of them represent examples which 
> >> were only considered technologically useful in the last 100 years, the 
> >> oldest being fingerprinting.  Given this, it is easy to conclude that there 
> >
> >	Which makes it interesting that he provides an Ecclesiastical 
> >	Court Decision from the Seventeenth Century.  
> >
> >	It isn't the US, but you haven't made an limitations 
> >	as to which legal system is acceptable.
> 
> As you quoted me above, you are aware that my point was that the SC-listed 
> exceptions to the 5th amendment were recent and didn't have older US 
> precedent.  I claimed that there was no logical reason to believe that such 

	So your conditions are US Supreme Court rulings, that
	handwriting exemplars are not fifth amendment violations.

	Those only occured in the middle of the Twentieth Century.   
	I don't think anybody is going to come up with an earlier 
	citation than that.  

	However, there are citations in US Court Cases, from C18 &
	C19, which made such a ruling.  It was only in C20 that 
	somebody fought it to the Supreme Court, and the court 
	decided to hear it.  

> claimed exceptions were anything other than comparatively recent excuses 

	200 years is recent, in comparison to China's 7 000 years
	of civilization, or the 2 000 years of Roman Law.  << Mental
	note --- see whether the Roman Courts could demand handwriting 
	exemplars, or not --- they did use Questioned Document 
	Examiners.  >> 

> given to allow violations of the 5th amendment.   While I am not totally 
> disinterested in foreign examples, that was NOT the area under discussion. A 

	I guess British Cases pre-1700 don't count.  Pity.  

        xan

        jonathon
        grafolog@netcom.com






**********************************************************************
*								     *
*	Opinions expressed don't necessarily reflect my own views.   *
*								     *
*	There is no way that they can be construed to represent      *
*	any organization's views.				     *
*								     *
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*	ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/gr/graphology/home.html	     *
*								     *
*			     OR					     *
*								     *
*       http://members.tripod.com/~graphology/index.html             *
*								     *
***********************************************************************