+ From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> + + "Contempts such as failure to comply with document discovery, for + example, while occurring outside the court's presence, impede the + court's ability to adjudicate the proceedings before it and thus touch + upon the core justification for the contempt power.... Similarly, + indirect contempts involving discrete, readily ascertainable acts, + _such as turning over a key_ or payment of a judgment, properly may be + adjudicated through civil proceedings since the need for extensive, + impartial fact-finding is less pressing." International Union, supra + (emphasis added). ... + I think it's clear, the court literally spells this out, that holding + a witness indefinitely until he complies with court orders is within + the discretion of a judge. Compelling through sanctions the + production of a "key" (though I'm not sure a crypto key is directly + contemplated) is likewise clearly permitted. Producing a physical key may or may not be testimonial under the "production privilege" doctrine established by the Supreme Court in Fisher and the Doe cases. Producing a *crypto* key -- if it exists only in one's mind -- is indisputably full-fledged Fifth Amendment testimony. I refer you to the language in Doe II (joined by all 9 Justices) distinguishing between "the key to a safe and the combination to a safe" -- the latter enjoying full Fifth Amendment protection from forced disclosure. (The message to which I'm responding was forwarded to me, as I do not subscribe to c-punks. If you want me to see a reply, cc me.)