On Sat, 20 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:
From: IN%"unicorn@schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 20-APR-1996 19:57:53.83
From: mirele@xmission.com
[reasons for desire for encryption deleted.
Were I a Co$ attorney, I would use this to bring discovery violations if I took you to court.
How would this work, since they _haven't_ served her with a subpoena?
I would use it to show the judge that she is obstructing and concealing her conduct and motion for all manner of annoying and intrusive discovery procedures as well as use it to show malice of intent. Because I asked 'nicely' the first time, her conduct is that much more offensive in that she merely used my good faith as a delay to more effectively conceal her conduct. It doesn't take much creativity to get really obnoxious. Judges get sympathetic to this kind of thing to. Paint the picture. Plaintiff tries to avoid litigation, sends correspondence, but defendant forces plaintiff's hand. This all assumes it ever gets to court, but Co$ is quick to sue.
I'm not saying they would pass muster, but they sure would be annoying.
This is the Co$; they'll be annoying (or worse) no matter what. Admittedly, letting them get more annoying unnecessarily isn't a good idea. Now, I wouldn't disagree that she should have posted through a nym. -Allen
I'm just pointing out that she just gave them more ammo, and, I might add, that it will be sitting on an archive for quite awhile. --- My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com