Spoliation cites

[Sandy Sandfort]

James A. Donald wrote:

> He has presented no such
> punishment, therefore no such
> case exists.
>
> Therefore remailer operators
> and the rest of us can in perfect
> comfort fail to keep logs, we can
> circulate thought crimes into
> irrecoverable systems, and so on
> and so forth.

Apparently, James did not understand the thrust of Aimee's post at all.  The
important thing to understand about legal precedents is that they may show a
TREND in the law.  The common law evolves over time.  To say that no
precedent DIRECTLY ON POINT exists means that you can operate "in perfect
comfort" is asinine.  The question is, what will a court say NEXT?


 S a n d y