From: attila The DOJ is not interested in either justice or the Bill of Rights. Federal attorneys are striving for high conviction rates, like Vietnam body counts --and are enforcing the policies of the administration, not the courts, the constitution, or the people. ........................................................... (I just read this message, even though Attila posted it this past Thursday.) I wanted to comment that it was a quite interesting post, because it deals with elements of courts and law which really baffle me - all the talk about which District Court stated this, and whether this will apply only in Northern California, and whether Judge Patel's ruling will be observed elsewhere or appealed to a higher court - I think to myself, sheesh, this is like being in a maze and trying to find the way out: If you go through this corridor, will you be on the straight path out, or is there perhaps a dead end around to the left of that edge up ahead, so maybe you should instead try going around that wall on the right? And how do you know how close you are to the exit? How do you know you aren't on a circuitous path going around & around, going nowhere? There are so many detailed decisions, so many objections, such meticulous, scrupulous study of every word & potential meaning therein, and all the judicious players appear so knowledgeable of what is or could not be valid, what is or could not be moral and therefore supportable, of which decision made by which judge on what year relating to what number on a document this all relates back to. It appears that there is a reason for the extreme concern for propriety and the extreme complexity in the assessment of it in a courtroom, in courtroom after level of courtroom. It appears that judges and lawyers and courts are deeply concerned about life proceeding in a moral way, and that they would play the role of catching it from degrading into corruption, affecting the quality of life in the US. Yet if the individual whose actions are in questions goes to jail, the atmosphere of intelligence or mental ability suddenly disappears, the delicacy towards morality and quality of behavior cuts off and there is no similar meticulous examination the institution wherein they are incarcerated, to continue ensuring that all processes there are aligned in the direction of goodness. Therefore what was it all for? If the quality of Truth and Morality is being saved from corruption by these Judges of Law, then why is one person's decision valid only in North California, but not as soon as one travels south (what's the boundary line for "North" California)? Or why does it "hold" in that state, but not anywhere else on the continent? I always think in the same terms used in the Constitution - about human nature and other such categories of thought. Not about where that human nature happens to be residing at any particular time, but what it is per se, and what is or is not right for it per se, regardless of whether it is in North or South Rhode Island. In terms of governmental roles, I'm aghast that they relate their judgements back to each other rather than back to principles. Because this means that, in the end, we are subordinate to the reasoning of some appointed individual, and subject to the lucidity of their mind at the particular moment that we come to their attention, as during a dispute regarding the publication of source code. We could never refer back to valid principles of thought or the Laws of Nature in determing what is right or what not to do, because overriding those considerations would be the calculations of some public overseer. I realize that not all lawyers & judges are this way, but it is still very unsettling to realize just how superficial is the 'honor' which accrues to them. Thanks for the elaboration on this, Attila. .. Blanc