Spoliation cites

[Harmon Seaver]

Black Unicorn wrote:

> I'm not sure where you have been over the last 48 hours but clearly
you've
> not been paying attention.
>

      Actually, I have.

>
> Courts _clearly_ have the ability to demand the production of all
copies and
> originals of a document.  They have merely to order it.

         Really? So some senile asshole orders it. I give him ten
copies. So
then what? Oh, there's more? How many? All? How many is "all"? Okay,
here's
ten more. Prove that's not "all".

> They _clearly_ have
> the ability to smack a gag order on also.  The rest of us settled that

> question some time ago.

       Hmm --- no, you decided it was settled to your satisfaction.

>
>
> >       As others have stated, if you don't keep logs, or throw away
all
> > your reciepts, there's not jack they can do about it.
>
> Uh, no.  And if you had been reading the many, many posts on this
point
> you'd see that about every one of the 10-15 cases cited here say
exactly the
> opposite of what you claim above.

          Cases dealing with corporations who naturally keep lots of
records,
files, etc. This was about a journalist, one entity, who probably keeps
about
the same number of grocery store receipts as the rest of us, like zero.

> (I didn't see a legal background on your
> resume either but perhaps you have any cites that I don't know about?)

      Hmm, sorry. IANAL. But I have spent one heck of a lot of time in
Gov.
docs reading statute and case law. Not that it matters -- this is really
more
about justice and common sense. Common sense dictates that I'd produce
-- if
ordered to hand over the "original and all copies" of my own work -- the

"original" and maybe 2 copies, then bogey to another jurisdiction and
anonymously spam the whole world with whatever they were trying to
suppress.

>
>
> > --- the interesting
> > question is whether or not they can somehow expect you to turn over
> > *all* copies of a document you've published on freenet or mojo. And
> > whether they are encrypted or not is irrelevant.
>
> Now I'm beginning to regret responding to this post at all because
it's
> painfully clear that you just haven't got a good grip on this issue.

       I think I've got an extremely good grip on the issue -- it's you
who
are doing your utmost to muddy the waters and take everyone's mind off
the real
issue. Who gives a fast flying fuck what this asshole judge, or any
other
scumbag court has to say when they are trying to suppress the truth?

> Had
> you been reading you'd have known the answer to this, and why
encryption or
> non-encryption was important about 40 posts ago.

        All I've seen from you is a whole lot of BS plainly intended to
obscure the real issue. Cite whatever you want --- it's totally
irrelevant. People
need to learn about their options.  Cite us the case of the villagers in
Latin
America who hacked a judge to death with machetes -- that's much more
relevant.

>
>
> >       Although really, the most serious question everyone should be
> > asking is why the court wants "all" copies.
>
> Asked and answered.

Asked, but not answered. The only possible answer is that it's a crooked
judge
who wants to suppress the truth.



--
Harmon Seaver, MLIS
CyberShamanix
Work 920-203-9633   hseaver at cybershamanix.com
Home 920-233-5820 hseaver at ameritech.net
http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html