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.