5 days ago this exchange surfaced in this thread:
Gary said

There isn't any such box, which puts the lie to everything you say.

You responded

You're right(sorry no reflection on your political leanings), there is no box to check if you want to pay additional taxes voluntarily

.
I stated then

Wow you just make stuff up and admit it just to reinforce your biased views of the world. Have you no integrity or shame?

Why should any believe you now? You compromised your integrity.

---

Does the United States Constitution allow incarceration without charge?

US citizen still being held without charge after 18 months

That's the way Amerika is working.

---

That's the way Amerika is working.

I thought you guys lived according to the rule of law & the constitution?

Here it is 72 hours only & a court order is required for anything longer which at the end of I believe the suspect has to be charged or released.

The defendant, Mr. Rawls, is being held in contempt-of-court citing the 1789 All Writs Act. The US Government has asserted, and so far a Federal Appellate court judge has upheld, that it is a forgone conclusion that Mr. Rawls has downloaded and possessed child pornography. The US Gov't further asserts that he doesn't have to give up any of his passwords; he merely has to unlock his encrypted drives.

Mr. Rawls' legal counsel is arguing that doing so is a violation of his fifth amendment rights since unlocking the drives would be akin to self incrimination.

Until the SCOTUS makes a clear call on the matter, it is, at this point, perfectly legal to hold someone indefinitely while under a contempt-of-court order.

The US Gov't further asserts that he doesn't have to give up any of his passwords; he merely has to unlock his encrypted drives.

And if his encryption password is also his password for everything else...?

Some superb judicial reasoning right there from whoever came up with that one.

---

The US Gov't further asserts that he doesn't have to give up any of his passwords; he merely has to unlock his encrypted drives.

And if his encryption password is also his password for everything else...?

Some superb judicial reasoning right there from whoever came up with that one.

Beat me to it :-(

The US Gov't further asserts that he doesn't have to give up any of his passwords; he merely has to unlock his encrypted drives.

And if his encryption password is also his password for everything else...?

Some superb judicial reasoning right there from whoever came up with that one.

Again, he isn't required to give up his password. He can keep the password secret all he wants. He merely has to enter that password into the unlock encryption dialog box.

(Mind you, I do think it is a slippery slope that the gov't is playing here.)

Until the SCOTUS makes a clear call on the matter, it is, at this point, perfectly legal to hold someone indefinitely while under a contempt-of-court order.

What the ...
Punished before a conviction!

Until the SCOTUS makes a clear call on the matter, it is, at this point, perfectly legal to hold someone indefinitely while under a contempt-of-court order.

What the ...
Punished before a conviction!

No. Enter the information or sit in jail until you do. Not any different than when they jail a reporter who refuses to tell them who his source is.

---

So Scotus makes law all by himself now , well so much for your constitution then !! Why bother having a Constitution .

Funny how the republicans whine if the Dem's even think of doing the stuff Trump is doing but it's ok when they are in power and hell F the Constitution while there at it

---

No. Enter the information or sit in jail until you do. Not any different than when they jail a reporter who refuses to tell them who his source is.

There's a huge difference... the reporter is not being charged and not taking the fifth and refusing to self-incriminate. They are protecting someone else. The constitution (U.S. at least) is pretty clear about self-incrimination and the right to remain silent and not testify against oneself. There just hasn't been a good precedent case to SCOTUS on encryption passwords yet, but when US vs. Doe was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit it was overturned on fifth amendment grounds.

Edit: See the post after mine for that Fifth. :^)

---

Remember this?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No. Enter the information or sit in jail until you do. Not any different than when they jail a reporter who refuses to tell them who his source is.

There's a huge difference... the reporter is not being charged and not taking the fifth and refusing to self-incriminate. They are protecting someone else. The constitution (U.S. at least) is pretty clear about self-incrimination and the right to remain silent and not testify against oneself. There just hasn't been a good precedent case to SCOTUS on encryption passwords yet, but when US vs. Doe was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit it was overturned on fifth amendment grounds.

Edit: See the post after mine for that Fifth. :^)

The difference here though is that the government says it is a foregone conclusion. They say they have evidence and reason to believe he has child pornography on his hard drives, therefore it is not self incrimination and not protected under the 5th.

The big question is: why aren't there any charges then?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Bad laws end in skit fights why is the above bad ? the use of one word witch has been used to get away with murder .

jeopardy

We here in Australia do not have "double jeopardy laws" if there is new evidence even 20 years later you can be charged again . Double jeopardy laws make a mockery of the rule of law as the rights of one 1 person should not put the rest of the community at risk and that is what it does .Now we know why some lawyers are paid so much .

---

The big question is: why aren't there any charges then?

That's why I worded the link the way I did.

The difference here though is that the government says it is a foregone conclusion.

Geez, why do they need evidence and investigations and courts at all then for any crimes? Just get right to the foregone conclusions and lock 'em up. :^p

---

Ah c'mon, do you want the Federation of Lawyers on your back? :-)

The difference here though is that the government says it is a foregone conclusion.

Geez, why do they need evidence and investigations and courts at all then for any crimes? Just get right to the foregone conclusions and lock 'em up. :^p

You misread then. They have evidence. The Philadelphia-based appeals court ruled:

Forensic examination also disclosed that Doe [Rawls] had downloaded thousands of files known by their "hash" values to be child pornography. The files, however, were not on the Mac Pro, but instead had been stored on the encrypted external hard drives. Accordingly, the files themselves could not be accessed.

Forensic examination also disclosed that Doe [Rawls] had downloaded thousands of files known by their "hash" values to be child pornography. The files, however, were not on the Mac Pro, but instead had been stored on the encrypted external hard drives. Accordingly, the files themselves could not be accessed.

Not really just because you may have downloaded files doesn't mean you actually got what you where downloading . I have downloaded movie files and when they were finished and I watched them they where not what I thought they were . I deleted them however they were being downloaded to C: drive first and once finished the torrent program would Automatically move the file to a external hard drive .

How do they know that he also has what ever program he was using set up to do the same thing ? also it doen't mean he still has the files on the drive . It also does not prove that he wasn't hacked or set up and that's how the files ended up on his drives ? And what's this # thing meta data ? If so they should be able to prove what where and when and not need to actually look at the drives just from the meta data alone

---