From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 12:34:28 +0800
To: Roger Schlafly <rschlafly@attmail.com>
Subject: Re: 5th protect password?
In-Reply-To: <rschlafly1102233230>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960419203753.1662E-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, Roger Schlafly wrote:

> 
> An escrow agent can presumably be compelled, unless his is accused
> of a crime, or has a privilege, or is outside jurisdiction.
> Interestingly, a footnote in the above case said:
> 
>    The Government of the Cayman Islands maintains that a compelled
>    consent, such as the one at issue in this case, is not
>    sufficient to authorize the release of confidential financial
>    records protected by Cayman law.
> 
> Sounds like the Cayman Islands might be a good place for your key
> escrow agents.

Currently, no better than the United States.

First, the Cayman Islands law refers primarily (if not exclusively) to 
financial information.  

Second, the judicial blocking provisions in the Caymans have been much 
reduced by the U.S. Mutual Legal Assistance treaty that penetrates 
banking secrecy when it is interfering with a criminal investigation 
involving money laundering or a series of other crimes.

Third, even in the event your escrow information was protected the court 
would be much more successful simply by trying to compel the defendant 
through contempt sanctions.  (It's not always enough to put data overseas, 
particularly where you're still sitting in the U.S. or otherwise within 
the court's jurisdiction).

Fourth, prosecutors don't typically bother to try and compell [escrow] 
agents, but instead seek "consent orders" from defendants instructing the 
agent to release the information.

So, in sum, the Caymans law doesn't have anything to do with 
non-financial information safekeeping.  Even if it did, a criminal 
investigation that would be interesting enough to try and seek non-tax 
and non-financial information from an agent in the Islands would almost 
certainly trigger the secrecy penetration clauses of the Mutual Legal 
Assistance Treaty.  And finally, the fact that they cant get your data is 
not going to protect you from a major main in the rump.

The large article I posted to the list goes into these points in detail in 
the context of protecting financial information and assets.  If you would 
like another copy, please let me know.

> 
> Roger Schlafly
> 

---
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