On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Black Unicorn wrote:
> It's a base conflict. A legal education is the ultimate dose of practical
> cynicism.
Hardly, it's a club where a bunch of self-appointed geniuses decide they
can make better decisions for other people than those people can.
> dislike for the state
James A. Donald wrote:
The basic problem with any legal incantation is that at some point
you must explain to the authorities: "My actions were legal for
this reason and that reason", explaining in inconveniently great
detail what you are doing, and their response your complicated and
highly inf
--
On 31 Jul 2001, at 11:53, Black Unicorn wrote:
> I wanted to make sure to correct the common misconception among
> cypherpunks that you can just thumb your nose at a court with
> impunity.
And I would like to correct the common misconception spread by lawyers that there are
magic legal f
Black Unicorn wrote:
> A legal education is the ultimate dose of practical cynicism. It
> quickly becomes apparent not that the law isn't perfect, but that it
> is often pretty damn screwed up. American jurisprudence is about
> _fairness of process_, not justice, or right, or wrong.
Come now, s
>From Black Unicorn:
>To me the important distinction is to recognize what we want the ideal to
be,
>but avoid running afoul of the law in the process.
-
If one does recognize what the ideal is to be, and it happens to be contrary
to existing law, ho
- Original Message -
From: "Trei, Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Black Unicorn'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 7:53 AM
Subject: RE: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong.
&
Thanks for your response. The 'in his direct or indirect
control' bit is the part that got lost in the article.
I hope it was clear that I was not looking for ways to
deny a court *access* to a piece of information, but
rather using the net (prior to a subpoena) as an way
to make *sequestr
Thanks for your response. The 'in his direct or indirect
control' bit is the part that got lost in the article.
I hope it was clear that I was not looking for ways to
deny a court *access* to a piece of information, but
rather using the net (prior to a subpoena) as an way
to make *sequestrat