From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 13:59:50 +0800
To: Moltar Ramone <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Contempt charges
Message-ID: <m0u8Hnt-0008xbC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 10:32 AM 4/10/96 -0400, Moltar Ramone wrote:

>>No doubt, a judge might whimsically keep Bob in jail for a while, trying 
>>to assure that he has revealed all of the pass phrases, but the judge 
>>can never be certain, even when Bob has disclosed everything.  This 
>>situation creates doubt that Bob is in contempt, even when he is, and 
>>makes a prison term relatively pointless, unless for revenge.


Despite your silly inferences below, I did not write this note that you are 
responding to.  However, I'd be happy to enter into a $1000 wager with you 
on this.  I'll give permission to any anonymous remailer through which this 
message might have passed (assuming it keeps reverse addresses, many do not) 
to release the original message IF I sent it.  If I did not, you pay me 
$1000.  If I did, I pay you $1000.

Deal?  Somehow I don't think you'll take me up on it.


>But that's what a contempt charge is _for_: "You're not treating me with 
>respect, so I'm going to punish you." It might be described as being for 
>a particular reason (ie supressing evidence), but each of those reasons 
>ultimately boils down to lack of respect.

Question:  How can a judge tell he's being treated with "respect" under the 
conditions described?   Simple answer:  He can't.  What, exactly, would the 
difference between "respect" and "no respect" be?


>In addition, were I handing down (or prosecuting) the contempt charges, I'd 
>claim that the statement (even if it was made in public) that the individual 
>didn't know all the keys in the first place was a lie, and that, by repeating 
>the lie, they were purjuring themself.

Proof would be a bit difficult under the circumstances.  However, I am sure 
that you consider minor issues such as proof to be of no consequence.