>>Its frightening how much power judges have, and how poorly they
are overseen.
Definitely agree there. Some of the civil cases are disgustingly bad,
due to there being no media attention and no real oversight. The civil
case mentioned above is a good example, and all of the excessive child
support orders even further that.
On topic: I haven't read every single reply here, but from what I've
seen: no one has mentioned the VPN provider being held personally
responsible. Being that the attacks originated from machines they own,
if they failed to turn over user information, could it really be that
difficult to pin the attacks on them and convince a judge that they
were responsible?
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Jeffrey Walton <noloader@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:noloader@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:32 PM, adam <adam@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:adam@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>>http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00754.htm
> Did you actually read the link you pasted?
> [...] and "criminal penalties may not be imposed on someone who
has not been
> afforded the protections that the Constitution requires of such
criminal
> proceedings [...] protections include the right [..]
> Then take a look at the actual rights being referenced. Most of
which would
> be violated as a result.
> In response to 0x41 "This is ONCE you are actually in front, of the
> judge...remember, it may take some breaking of civil liberty,
for this to
> happen... "
> No, you're absolutely right. That's the point here. Contempt is
attached to
> the previous court order, there wouldn't be a new judge/new case
for the
> contempt charge alone. All of it is circumstantial anyway,
especially due to
> how much power judges actually have (in both criminal AND civil
> proceedings).
Its frightening how much power judges have, and how poorly they are
overseen. Confer: Judge James Ware, US 9th Circuit Court (this is not
a local judge in a hillbilly town).
Jeff