Spoliation cites

[jamesd at echeque.com]

    --
On 5 Aug 2001, at 5:07, Aimee Farr wrote:
> If you read any of those cites and shep'd them, you will see
> there are circumstances where defendants didn't know the
> documents were relevant to a specific lawsuit.

That summary of those cases seems misleading to me.

You yourself have acknowledged that standard best practice legal 
advice is to routinely purge all internal email after a few weeks.

That does not sound not compatible with your summary above of 
those citations, and it is incompatible with the positions taken by 
Sandy and Black Unicorn.

Most of the postings issued by you three, particularly those issued 
by Black Unicorn, sound to me as if they were issued in ignorance 
of the standard and legally recommended practice, that you were 
unaware of standard best practice on the topic on which you were 
posting.

To repeat:  If it is legal to routinely purge all internal email, it is 
legal to publish thoughtcrimes on freenet, legal for remailer 
operators to keep no logs.

If it ever becomes illegal, the lawyers will go looking for records of 
deep pockets first, and go after the remailer operators later.   We 
do not have to worry about mandatory remailer logs, until after the 
lawyers have successfully enforced mandatory recording of all 
indications of deep pockets.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     rz25ERk2AhUYlyVa+bptsmwFk4GPnsFcuOKIu4CG
     4FGjwWSSPJFC3LQUmXNIITgeThxTqDx73aiC1gwaT