[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: cypherpunks
Subject: Re: Secrets, lies and Snowden's email: why I was forced to shut down Lavabit
From: jim bell <jamesdbell9 () yahoo ! com>
Date: 2014-05-21 2:57:46
Message-ID: 1400641066.36563.YahooMailNeo () web126204 ! mail ! ne1 ! yahoo ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
From: Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>
On Tue, 20 May 2014 18:47:28 -0700 (PDT)
jim bell <jamesdbell9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Myself, I feel that no court can legitimately have any legal
> authority to order anyone to not speak about a legal proceeding.
> By definition, or by their own nature, or both, state courts
> are free to do whatever they please. I thought you might be
> familiar with the concept...?
> Legitimacy? Whatever the government does is 'legitimate'
> because they say so.>
Well, in this case, it doesn't really have anything to do with what the State court \
can _do_. Everything would happen BEFORE the State court has an opportunity to \
realize what's going on. ("May you be in Heaven 30 minutes before the Devil knows \
you're dead"). The purpose is to use the State court as a 'prop': The document(s) \
filed with that State court will, presumably, _also_be orders in a Federal Court case \
which a Federal Court Judge orders some private individual to 'not disclose', as if \
that Federal judge had authority to do so. But, there is also a strong presumption \
that people have a right to file civil cases in state courts, and such documents \
filed in those State courts (generally) become public-domain documents. (Unless \
somebody specifically requests that those documents be, themselves, 'sealed', and the \
State court judge approves this.) If a person who is the target of a "sealed" Federal \
filing chooses to file the documents in a State court case, I presume he remains \
entitled to file those documents freely in the State court case. And, once so file, \
those documents will automatically become public-domain documents (at least until \
they are, themselves, sealed) and they can be published on the Internet. It would be \
a very tricky question whether any party in this whole mix can be 'punished' for \
arranging this kind of dance. I think a lawyer would have a good-faith belief that \
this is a proper exercise of law. The ultimate goal, though, is to 'legally' publish \
documents that some Federal judge doesn't want to see published. Since the mere \
publication of those documents destroys their secrecy, I think some lawyer should \
look into this, for the future. Jim Bell
> It's easy to explain why: The First Amendment, and the well-known
> prohibition against prior restraint, etc.
> But the reality is that
> courts have developed the idea that "order" the "sealing" of
> documents. I don't have an argument with an idea that a court can
> order an employee of government to not speak, precisely because he IS
> a government employee. But Mr. Levison wasn't, and isn't a
> government employee. Would the procedure I described above 'get
> around' the law? Jim Bell
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new \
roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:14pt"><div></div><div style="font-family: \
'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 14pt;"><div \
style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida \
Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div dir="ltr"> <font size="2" face="Arial"> \
<b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Juan \
<juan.g71@gmail.com><br><span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica \
Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">On Tue, 20 \
May 2014 18:47:28 -0700 (PDT)</span><br></font></div><div class="y_msg_container">jim \
bell <<a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:jamesdbell9@yahoo.com" \
href="mailto:jamesdbell9@yahoo.com">jamesdbell9@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br \
clear="none"><br clear="none">> Myself, I feel that no court can legitimately have \
any legal<br clear="none">> authority to order anyone to not speak about a legal \
proceeding.<br clear="none">> By definition, or by their own nature, or both, \
state courts<br clear="none">> are free to do whatever they please. I thought you \
might be<br clear="none">> familiar with the concept...? <br clear="none">> \
Legitimacy? Whatever the government does is 'legitimate'<br clear="none">> because \
they say so.><div class="yqt8655332067" id="yqtfd68141"><br clear="none">Well, in \
this case, it doesn't really have anything to do with what the State court can _do_. \
Everything would happen BEFORE the State court has an opportunity to realize \
what's going on. ("May you be in Heaven 30 minutes before the Devil knows \
you're dead"). The purpose is to use the State court as a 'prop': The \
document(s) filed with that State court will, presumably, _also_be orders in a \
Federal Court case which a Federal Court Judge orders some private individual to \
'not disclose', as if that Federal judge had authority to do so. But, there is \
also a strong presumption that people have a right to file civil cases in state \
courts, and such documents filed in those State courts (generally) become \
public-domain documents. (Unless somebody specifically requests that those \
documents be, themselves, 'sealed', and the State court judge approves \
this.)</div><div class="yqt8655332067" id="yqtfd68141">If a person who is the target \
of a "sealed" Federal filing chooses to file the documents in a State court case, I \
presume he remains entitled to file those documents freely in the State court case. \
And, once so file, those documents will automatically become public-domain \
documents (at least until they are, themselves, sealed) and they can be published on \
the Internet. It would be a very tricky question whether any party in this \
whole mix can be 'punished' for arranging this kind of dance. I think a lawyer \
would have a good-faith belief that this is a proper exercise of law. The \
ultimate goal, though, is to 'legally' publish documents that some Federal judge \
doesn't want to see published. Since the mere publication of those documents \
destroys their secrecy, I think some lawyer should look into this, for the \
future.</div><div class="yqt8655332067" id="yqtfd68141"> \
Jim Bell</div><div class="yqt8655332067" id="yqtfd68141"><br><br><br clear="none"><br \
clear="none">> It's easy to explain why: The First Amendment, and the \
well-known<br clear="none">> prohibition against prior restraint, etc. <br \
clear="none">> But the reality is that<br clear="none">> courts have developed \
the idea that "order" the "sealing" of<br clear="none">> documents. I don't \
have an argument with an idea that a court can<br clear="none">> order an employee \
of government to not speak, precisely because he IS<br clear="none">> a \
government employee. But Mr. Levison wasn't, and isn't a<br clear="none">> \
government employee. Would the procedure I described above 'get<br clear="none">> \
around' the law? Jim Bell<br clear="none"></div><br><br></div> </div> </div> \
</div></body></html>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic