From: blanc <blancw@cnw.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 19:07:53 -0800 (PST)
To: "'cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: RE: some clarification of jurisdiction in Berstein (long)
Message-ID: <01BBEF72.8B760B60@king1-05.cnw.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	attila

        The DOJ is not interested in either justice or the Bill of
    Rights. Federal attorneys are striving for high conviction rates,
    like Vietnam body counts --and are enforcing the policies of the
    administration, not the courts, the constitution, or the people.
...........................................................

(I just read this message, even though Attila posted it this past 
Thursday.)

I wanted to comment that it was a quite interesting post, because it deals 
with elements of courts and law which really baffle me - all the talk about 
which District Court stated this, and whether this will apply only in 
Northern California, and whether Judge Patel's ruling will be observed 
elsewhere or appealed to a higher court -

I think to myself, sheesh, this is like being in a maze and trying to find 
the way out:   If you go through this corridor, will you be on the straight 
path out, or is there perhaps a dead end around to the left of that edge up 
ahead, so maybe you should instead try going around that wall on the right? 
 And how do you know how close you are to the exit?   How do you know you 
aren't on a circuitous path going around & around, going nowhere?

There are so many detailed decisions, so many objections, such meticulous, 
scrupulous study of every word & potential meaning therein, and all the 
judicious players appear so knowledgeable of what is or could not be valid, 
what is or could not be moral and therefore supportable, of which decision 
made by which judge on what year relating to what number on a document this 
all relates back to.

It appears that there is a reason for the extreme concern for propriety and 
the extreme complexity in the assessment of it in a courtroom, in courtroom 
after level of courtroom.  It appears that judges and lawyers and courts 
are deeply concerned about life proceeding in a moral way, and that they 
would play the role of catching it from degrading into corruption, 
affecting the quality of life in the US.

Yet if the individual whose actions are in questions goes to jail, the 
atmosphere of intelligence or mental ability suddenly disappears, the 
delicacy towards morality and quality of behavior cuts off and there is no 
similar meticulous examination the institution wherein they are 
incarcerated, to continue ensuring that  all processes there are aligned in 
the direction of goodness.

Therefore what was it all for?   If the quality of Truth and Morality is 
being saved from corruption by these Judges of Law, then why is one 
person's decision valid only in North California, but not as soon as one 
travels south (what's the boundary line for "North" California)?  Or why 
does it "hold" in that state, but not anywhere else on the continent?

I always think in the same terms used in the Constitution - about human 
nature and other such categories of thought.  Not about where that human 
nature happens to be residing at any particular time, but what it is per 
se, and what is or is not right for it per se, regardless of whether it is 
in North or South Rhode Island.  In terms of governmental roles, I'm aghast 
that they relate their judgements back to each other rather than back to 
principles.   Because this means that, in the end, we are subordinate to 
the reasoning of some appointed individual, and subject to the lucidity of 
their mind at the particular moment that we come to their attention, as 
during a dispute regarding the publication of source code.  We could never 
refer back to valid principles of thought or the Laws of Nature in 
determing what is right or what not to do, because overriding those 
considerations would be the calculations of some public overseer.

I realize that not all lawyers & judges are this way, but it is still very 
unsettling to realize just how superficial is the 'honor' which accrues to 
them.

Thanks for the elaboration on this, Attila.

   ..
Blanc