At 04:16 AM 4/25/96 +0000, Jonathon Blake wrote:
Jim:
On Wed, 24 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:
Notice that he hasn't presented what he would claim to be the scope of the conditions, which suggests that he's going to try to spring them on me
I haven't seen a list of your conditions yet.
How about placing your minimally acceptable requirements for accepting Black Unicorn's Wager.
At the very least, he'd have to IDENTIFY himself at least to the extent that I have done so. Name, address, telephone number, etc.
the examples quoted in that SC decision, which were cited as exceptions to 5th amendment protections in the US, all of them represent examples which were only considered technologically useful in the last 100 years, the oldest being fingerprinting. Given this, it is easy to conclude that there
Which makes it interesting that he provides an Ecclesiastical Court Decision from the Seventeenth Century.
It isn't the US, but you haven't made an limitations as to which legal system is acceptable.
As you quoted me above, you are aware that my point was that the SC-listed exceptions to the 5th amendment were recent and didn't have older US precedent. I claimed that there was no logical reason to believe that such claimed exceptions were anything other than comparatively recent excuses given to allow violations of the 5th amendment. While I am not totally disinterested in foreign examples, that was NOT the area under discussion. A foreign example is irrelevant because it does not challenge my claim. Notice that Unicorn has studiously avoided my original observation.