On Sunday, April 29, 2001, at 07:41 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> I think Matt is a bit too quick to conclude a court will charge the
> operator with contempt and that the contempt charge will stick on
> appeal. Obviously judges have a lot of discretion, but it doesn't seem
> to me like the question is such a clear one if a system is set up in
> the proper cypherpunkish manner.
As there are no "ex post facto" laws, setting up an offshore/non-duress
log haven in 2001 cannot result in a charge in 2003 that this was
illegal or contempt of court.
Not even today's fool judges will claim that is "contempt."
(It is only "contempt" if a judge orders an action which a witness is
_able_ to comply with but which he does not...and of course not always
then.)
Judges cannot require time machines be used to undo past actions.
--Tim May
