From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 15:09:27 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: [Yadda Yadda Yadda] Re: What can the judge do to me?
In-Reply-To: <m0u90Yb-00090RC@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960415230235.7936G-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Mon, 15 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:

As I predicted, Mr. Bell attributes positions to me I never took.

> At 07:51 PM 4/15/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:

> take the different position that ALL fines are ultimately "punitive"?  That 
> position is apparently not _excluded_ by the constituion, which means that 
  ^^^^^^^^
> at best, you might try to argue that your position is _allowed_ by the 
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> constitution.

Woah, nice transition.  "That position" suddenly becomes "my position."  
Tell me, what is my position?  I never expressed an opinion.

> >A contempt fine is
> >considered civil and remedial if it either coerces a defendant into 
> >compliance with a court order 
> 
> You do love those circular arguments, don't you!
  ^^^                                         ^^^
The above is the argument of the court, not my argument.  I never 
expressed an opinion on the argument.

> Hint:  If the position you support is true, then you should be able to show 
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Is that a satisfactory justication for your position?
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What was my position again?

> Apparently, it wasn't really necessary, and thus, any justifications based 
> on the claim that it was necessary were dishonest.  As are your 
                                                             ^^^^
> justifications today, on a somewhat different issue.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

My justifications?  Where?

> 
> I've long pointed out that your own arguments self-destruct, and perhaps 
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    
I'm making none here.

> >By 'wrong' you mean doesn't agree with you.  I'm sure precident and it's 
> >rationale means little to you.

> That's spelled "precedent."  But why am I telling you this?

Because English is my third (or fourth depending on how you count them) 
language and I don't bother with spell checkers?  How well do you spell in 
German, Alemanish or Estonian?

As always, I never expressed opinions on the courts view.  You asked for 
justifications, I gave you the court's.  I've not commented on my own 
view.

---
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