Spoliation cites

[Aimee Farr]

James wrote:
     --
> 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.

Obviously.

James, you are like a snappin' turtle. You just won't let go. I could move
you with a stick.

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

Yes. Unless it is of special relevance. For example:

Dear company:

I just wanted to write you and tell you that the microwave that I bought
from you exploded. Thought you should know. Nobody was hurt, thank goodness!
Maybe something is wrong with it?

Thanks,

Mrs. Smith

The above wouldn't just be any old email now would it?

> 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.

No.

> 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.

No.

> 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 A is L, than B and C are L?

> 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.

Somebody give me a stick!

James, truly, I see the point you are trying to make and the logic you are
trying to apply. We will see what the courts do.

~Aimee