[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CJR returned to sender

On Wed, 25 Oct 1995, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> Michael Froomkin writes:
> {words to the effect of "enough already"}
> I was unaware, Mr. Froomkin, that the legal system of our country had
> the right to arbitrarily ignore its own rules and refuse to answer a
> question. The munitions T-Shirt was not, in my opinion, substantially

Yes, it has an obligation to answer.

> more frivolous than Phil Karn's floppy, which was rejected. I do not

We disagree.

> believe that the state department has the right to reject such things
> by refusing to accept their mail, and I do not believe that they have

This assumes a conscious decision was made; I'm more inclined to think 
it's a screw up.  In any case, sending it registered mail, or by 
courrier, would remove the doubt.

> the right to violate their own proceedures. If someone asks "is this
> captain midnight decoder ring exportable" they are legally obligated
> to answer, one way or the other, unless we live under a government of
> men, and not laws.
Yes.  I just hope the members of this list have more sense than to do 
frivolous things, although of course I defend their legal right to do 
so.  Of course, one part of being wise is picking the right fights.

This will be my last comment on this thread.

A. Michael Froomkin        | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
Associate Professor of Law | 
U. Miami School of Law     | [email protected]
P.O. Box 248087            | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin
Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's hot here.  And humid.