Re: "Contempt" charges likely to increase
At 07:59 PM 4/12/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:
I might add that the Cayman Islands are full of trust companies with provisions which forbid the disclosure of data to a client who is coerced. A law on the books refuses to recognize "consent" orders made under judicial compulsion. This would give the appearance of total unavailability of evidence and suggest the futility of contempt charges. Yet courts have still, and with no small measure of success, imposed sanctions on witnesses so protected.
What measure of success? Getting the data, or locking up the witness? -Allen
Getting the data. If the IRS or a private plaintiff wants it bad enough, they can usually get their hands on it, or at least find out where it is.
The government of the United States doesn't play "fair" when they want something.
But if the government of the United States does play "fair," then why can we not play "fair" and kill their agents who violate what we feel is our rights? After all, the government is merely the representative of the people (at least in theory!) and it 'must' follow the rules (laws, Constitution, etc). To whatever extent it exceeds those limits, and to whatever extent the public can't get justice to prevent those violations, why would the public be obligated to accept them? To believe otherwise is to believe that the government has some sort of special dispensation to violate the law. I don't believe this; it wouldn't surprise me to hear that you do, however. Which is it? Jim Bell
I will not, of course, reply to Bell's reply. On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:
At 07:59 PM 4/12/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
The government of the United States doesn't play "fair" when they want something.
But if the government of the United States does play "fair," then why can we not play "fair" and kill their agents who violate what we feel is our rights?
Are you planning on affording them due process rights? What about other rights generally? At least the U.S. government attempts to do this. How about a trial, or does it merely take a single bidder with money to have someone offed? Sounds like tyrrany of the rich to me. I might add that if this is the way things were the richest would be the survivors, able to kill their enemies, protect themselves better, and deploy their own agents. Jim Bell would be uni's first victim methinks. Sure, implement this policy, I'd love it. I'm not sure there would be many people standing in the end, but the wealthy would be the last of them. You're merely replacing the leaders with even more despotic types and without any constitutional protections. (BTW, read it closely, I said they DON'T play fair.)
After all, the government is merely the representative of the people (at least in theory!) and it 'must' follow the rules (laws, Constitution, etc).
I think the U.S. government does a much better job at this than almost any other sovereign excepting perhaps the U.K., which has still had its share of self contradiction.
To whatever extent it exceeds those limits, and to whatever extent the public can't get justice to prevent those violations, why would the public be obligated to accept them?
Really Mr. Bell has recognized something important, though I'm not sure even he realizes it. Specifically, that when his allies are so few in number he must resort to general terrorism and low intensity conflict to have any hope of success at all.
To believe otherwise is to believe that the government has some sort of special dispensation to violate the law. I don't believe this; it wouldn't surprise me to hear that you do, however. Which is it?
I don't believe anyone has any special dispensation. It's all a question of who can get away with it. For all your moaning and whining, you are still less able to get away with it than agents of the CIA and the men on top. It must be killing you. I can feel the way the knife twists in you with the realization that you are another small gear in the machine. You and the Unabomber. Horrified at the thought that you might be insignificant. Driven by the need to be important, noticed. Some people work to change the system by developing structures to work within it, or around it. You call for the assassination of (not even particularly important) public officials on the whim of the individual who happens to have cash. You're a one trick pony and it's getting boring fast. Grow up.
Jim Bell [B.A. Physics, Ph.D. Nuclear Physics, J.D., LL.M. (Taxation) Coast Guard Certified Navigator, Ph.D. Computer Science (Thesis on bytes), M.A. Political Science.]
--- 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
participants (2)
-
Black Unicorn -
jim bell