[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Leahy and Mrs. Bemmis (now that's a subject line)
On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:
> At 11:24 AM 3/11/96 -0500, A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security wrote:
>
> >The Leahy bill is flawed in two areas. Sent a message with proposed wording
> >to Sen. Leahy via his web page but have not gotten a response. Have a bad
> >habit of reading laws without thought since this is how LEA and prosecutors
> >are told to enforce them - as written, not as believed. If an area is
> >vague, a court is required to decide how to interpret it, not LEA. If badly
> >written *everyone* loses.
>
> Unfortunately, this is not the way CREATIVE prosecutors enforce laws.
> _THEY_ try to be imaginative, "pushing the envelope" as it were, and expect
> the courts to stop them. Sadly, those same courts often have ex-prosecutors
> as judges, people who aren't particularly inclined to dissuade the abuse of
> laws. (exceptions exist, obviously.)
Mr. Bell seems to me, based on what I have observed of his legal
"analysis" in past, entirely unqualified to be speaking to these issues.
I hope readers will take his comments with a grain of salt, and keep this
in mind.
> Jim Bell
> [email protected]
---
My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: [email protected]
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information