1997-05-22 - Re: Compelling a key (fwd)

Header Data

From: tzeruch@ceddec.com
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Message Hash: 7080cb753c382c15462c95741ddb4cdb57c523973e6c44285ebb69705084f751
Message ID: <97May22.131409edt.32257-1@brickwall.ceddec.com>
Reply To: <v03007808afa96b4f9980@[]>
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-22 17:47:58 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 01:47:58 +0800

Raw message

From: tzeruch@ceddec.com
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 01:47:58 +0800
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: Compelling a key (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <v03007808afa96b4f9980@[]>
Message-ID: <97May22.131409edt.32257-1@brickwall.ceddec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Wed, 21 May 1997, Tim May wrote:

> At 4:45 PM -0800 5/21/97, Jim Choate wrote:
> >> In practice, I think the Washington, D.C. doctor, Elizabeth X, the woman
> >> who refused to say where her children were, was held for about 2 years, and
> >> that this was the all-time record for a contempt case. She was ultimately
> >> released when the court concluded she had no intention of cooperating.
> >
> >Exactly! It is ENTIRELY up to the individual judge who issued the contempt
> >citation. If they are pissed enough 2 years will be nothing. As far as I
> >have been able to find there are NO statutes, other than that of a statute
> >of limitation for a particular type of crime, that limit how long you can
> >sit in jail on contempt.

One correction.  She was released by a special law passed by the house of
representatives after a media blitz about her case.  The law only let her
go and did not generally limit the period of time people could be held in
contempt.  It was not the judge, but a legislature trying to quell some
outcry without doing any real reform