From: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 14:25:15 -0800 (PST)
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?
In-Reply-To: <199612260701.XAA25145@mail.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.961226171959.6946B-100000@mercury.thepoint.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Wed, 25 Dec 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 12:31 AM 12/26/96 -0500, Brian Davis wrote:
> 
> I would argue that if the bank can be forced to help the government enforce 
> the law, the bank should also become liable for damage done as a consequence 
> of complying with such requirements.  While it's a different area, within 
> the last few years a decision was made (SC?) that companies which had made 
> Agent Orange for the US Government during Vietnam can be held liable 
> (without recourse against the government, apparently) for the damages caused 
> ex-servicemen for selling dioxin-tained Agent Orange to the government, but 
> manufactured totally according to government specifications.  (and used only 
> outside the US, under government direction, by government agents, in an 
> entirely different legal jurisdiction, to boot!)   Seemingly, doing 
> something at the behest of government does not immunize one.

The fact that a bank complied with a federal regulation governing the 
bank is not similar to a business selling a defective product.

> 
> 
> 
> > The guy is a lawyer and had 
> >previously been involved in transactions in which such reports had been 
> >filed.  What is your explanation for the three 3 $9k check request?  
> 
> I have none.  But then again, I don't have to.  Unless "guilty until proven 
> innocent" has been adopted as a standard of proof in American courts.  Do 
> you know something we don't?

Apparently I do.  And that is that juries can draw inferences and that 
lawyers can call attention to possible inferences.  His lawyer could 
argue "no harm, no foul" and the prosecutor could argue that he intended 
to violate the statute, but got caught.  The jury would've then decided 
the issue, with the government bearing the burden of proof BRD. 



> BTW, gambling pools like this are supposed to be illegal, aren't they?  
> Isn't it odd when government seems to stop enforcing laws unless it's 
> profitable to do so?  

And the State of California was free to prosecute him.  Most crimes are 
state crimes only; some have both state and federal aspects; others are 
solely federal crimes. 

EBD

> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com
>