The Curious Propsenity of Some Cypherpunks for (loud) Willful Ignorance. Was: Re: Spoliation cites

[jamesd at echeque.com]

    --
georgemw at speakeasy.net wrote:
> > > I consider it,  as I said,  monstrous that a judge can
> > > legally deprive me of all copies of my own work in order to
> > > enforce a gag order,  but again,  if that's the way it is,
> > > that's the way it is.  But it goes well beyond the bizzare
> > > to suggest that I should anticipate the possibility of a
> > > gag order and preemptively gag myself in case one might be
> > > issued at a later date.

James A. Donald:
> > Judges have never attempted such crap, and if they do,
> > lawyers will be irrelevant, and will have been irrelevant for
> > a long time before the such anyone attempts such crap.
> >
> > These guys (Black Unicorn and his cheer squad) are loons, and
> > I cannot imagine why they post such nonsense.

Black Unicorn
> The only thing that is more surprising than your total willful
> ignorance (have you even bothered to look at the several cites
> I have posted that positively refute your statement above?

A few posts back one of your loudest supporters suddenly reversed course and proclaimed that neither he nor yourself ever took such an extreme position, (his typically polite method of issuing a retraction) yet here you are taking an extreme position  once again.

The only cite that could possibly refute my words above would be to cite someone being busted, since the behavior you claim is illegal, the behavior that George announces his intention to engage in, is routine in most well run companies.

> I have cited authority for the proposition that courts, and more often
> plaintiffs, routinely demand broad productions related to a given matter.

To be relevant to the case I and George speak of above, you need to cite an actual bust of someone whose work is deemed a thought crime, and was punished for ensuring that it was distributed out of his control before it was declared a thought crime.

No one doubts that courts have broad authority to demand pie in the sky.  What people doubt is that courts have broad authority to punish those who have rendered pie in the sky unobtainable, well before the case began, to punish those that have rendered the demand for pie in the sky moot.

As I posted earlier in response to your claim of broad authority:

Glendower: "I can call spirits from the vasty deep."

Hotspur: "Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?"

> I have cited authorities.  I have cited examples.

You have not cited relevant examples.  We have actual legal precedents where a remailer operator was summoned before a court and said "Sorry, I do not keep logs." end of discussion.

They cannot suddenly turn around and punish one for doing what one has legal precedent to believe is legal, and if we ever get to that point, you will have been unemployed for some considerable time.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     lZd4vAi2TTpp5GRW15mn1q+cyAFO0PJtAiYPT7GK
     4aBAZQL08uKxJdCdzB6Qq5wZagEOir8ecDvv5GFYB