LEO and prosecutors are allowed to lie to you; permitted to deceive for the suspected greater good. The Justice Department - even their name is deceiving.
They are not allowed to lie under oath in court. That is perjury and punishable. They're only permitted to lie during an investigation.
This 'email' was never sent so it never was an email
As this was never send but purely a draft it doesn't even qualify under the dictionary definition.
What it shows is Steve Jobs' intent. If he wasn't thinking about getting the publishers to change their deals with Amazon, he would not have written it in the first place. That he never sent it shows that it occurred to him that putting that into writing was not such a good idea.
Please keep in mind that this is not a jury trial. A judge will decide guilt or innocence. And this particular judge stated publicly that she thinks Apple is guilty before the trial even began. In my opinion this is a show trial. Apple will be found guilty no matter what. Dozens of class action lawsuits depend on Apple being guilty and so it will be found guilty.
Exactly. The judge is not going to go against the US government on this one and make them look like fools. This case was decided before the trial even started as per the judge's statements. The government wants a piece of the big Apple pie and will get it one way or another.
The current DoJ is corrupt as hell? Suck on a long big pile of bullspit. The prior DoJ was Hooverian by comparison.
Have you just awoken from a multi year coma? I have to assume that you have not been following the news and current events at all, since the current DOJ is involved in a whole slew of nasty scandals, far worse than anything before. I wouldn't be surprised if we see some people ending up behind bars eventually, hopefully starting from the top and going down.
I commend you for this and would encourage everyone to do the same, but keep in mind that the who's who of our communications are highly informative by themselves and even encrypted e-mail still includes the addresses of the sender and recipient(s) in clear text within the message header. Similarly, the call logs obtained by the NSA reveal the networks of people we all communicate with and yield important information about our individual activities without the need to intercept the actual conversations.
I fully agree, and am aware of what you're saying.
Even if they only have the metadata, then they actually have a whole lot. You can know somebody's every move from piecing together just the metadata.
What it shows is Steve Jobs' intent. If he wasn't thinking about getting the publishers to change their deals with Amazon, he would not have written it in the first place. That he never sent it shows that it occurred to him that putting that into writing was not such a good idea.
Does that include the "intent" to offer new releases at lower prices?
As to those criticizing Holder -- as much as I dislike the guy, there is such a slim chance that he had any actual input into going forward with this. The DoJ is gigantic, with a vast number of divisions.
Have you just awoken from a multi year coma? I have to assume that you have not been following the news and current events at all, since the current DOJ is involved in a whole slew of nasty scandals, far worse than anything before. I wouldn't be surprised if we see some people ending up behind bars eventually, hopefully starting from the top and going down.
Actually, most of these scandals weren't actual scandals. And few of them have to do with the DoJ.
They are not allowed to lie under oath in court. That is perjury and punishable. They're only permitted to lie during an investigation.
I did not mean to imply otherwise. I should have been more clear.
Point remains, the rest of us do not have that privilege during their investigation. Nor can we turnabout and prosecute or sue them for it. "Justice" right?
What it shows is Steve Jobs' intent. If he wasn't thinking about getting the publishers to change their deals with Amazon, he would not have written it in the first place. That he never sent it shows that it occurred to him that putting that into writing was not such a good idea.
No, it doesn't show intent. What it shows is that Jobs entertained certain ideas at some point, but abandoned them. In fact, the fact that he didn't send it, but sent an entirely different email shows intent of the opposite of what the DoJ argues.
Sorry, but "thinking about" something isn't illegal, especially when you obviously abandoned that line of thought.
That the DoJ pretends this is a smoking gun, and the Judge doesn't want to hear the evidence, now, that shows intent.
Impression I got from Eddy's side of the email was Apple was trying to push the publishers to as low a cost as they could get. Even the original Job's comment was more along the lines of we hope they push Amazon to agency or it will be tough for us to be competitive.
I did not mean to imply otherwise. I should have been more clear.
Point remains, the rest of us do not have that privilege [of lying] during their investigation. Nor can we turnabout and prosecute or sue them for it. "Justice" right?
That's why you should never talk to "investigators", especially not without your lawyer present, and even then you should probably assert your 5th Amendment rights. Even an inadvertent misstatement could turn into a prosecution for lying to them.
No, it doesn't show intent. What it shows is that Jobs entertained certain ideas at some point, but abandoned them. In fact, the fact that he didn't send it, but sent an entirely different email shows intent of the opposite of what the DoJ argues.
Sorry, but "thinking about" something isn't illegal, especially when you obviously abandoned that line of thought.
That the DoJ pretends this is a smoking gun, and the Judge doesn't want to hear the evidence, now, that shows intent.
What's latin for "It's the thought that counts"? Perhaps they need to etch that under Lady Justice since it seems to be their new motto.
That's why you should never talk to "investigators", especially not without your lawyer present, and even then you should probably assert your 5th Amendment rights. Even an inadvertent misstatement could turn into a prosecution for lying to them.
Plenty of folks smarter and more lawyered up than me have fallen prey to this. Hard to prove an honest mistatement wasn't intent to lie. Justice is just another protection racket, regardless of who tops the Executive Branch.
Sorry, but "thinking about" something isn't illegal, especially when you obviously abandoned that line of thought.
The problem is, it isn't "obvious" that he abandoned that line of thought, merely that he thought better about putting that thought in writing. If he acted consistent with that thought, even if he was never again dumb enough to write it down or be recorded saying it, then the DOJ can show that A) He had that thought, and He acted on that thought, which would prove their case.
Remember, the publishers did impose agency pricing on Amazon. The DOJ has now shown the other end of the chain, that Steve Jobs was thinking about trying to get that to happen. Now the question is, did he/Apple act to make that happen? I don't know. If they can prove intent (they have), action (unknown), and results (obvious), then they will have proven illegal collusion. If they can't prove that Steve/Apple acted to make his thought into reality, then they should not win.
If they are looking into me here, it's for crimes against the English language. Guilty as charged.
You're all kidding on this "the evil gov'mt got these emails"? DOJ got this information the old fashioned way -- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, more specifically Part V - Discovery. The FRCP was first implemented in 1938, the purpose of which was to allow all sides to a legal dispute to have access to each side's information prior to trial. Every state now has similar rules, and similar rules apply in criminal proceedings both in federal and state proceedings.
Actually I think the Government is trying to save the printing and wholesale distributor business. Honestly the only reason to fight this hard about something as stupid as this is they government must be afraid another heavy industry like printing companies will go by the waste side if people favor low cost e-books over a traditional book. They do not want to see people loose their jobs at printing companies. Why else presue this, so Amazon and keep giving away books at below market prices.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB
.
LEO and prosecutors are allowed to lie to you; permitted to deceive for the suspected greater good. The Justice Department - even their name is deceiving.
They are not allowed to lie under oath in court. That is perjury and punishable. They're only permitted to lie during an investigation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by festerfeet
How can a gun smoke when it hasn't been fired?
This 'email' was never sent so it never was an email
As this was never send but purely a draft it doesn't even qualify under the dictionary definition.
What it shows is Steve Jobs' intent. If he wasn't thinking about getting the publishers to change their deals with Amazon, he would not have written it in the first place. That he never sent it shows that it occurred to him that putting that into writing was not such a good idea.
Exactly. The judge is not going to go against the US government on this one and make them look like fools. This case was decided before the trial even started as per the judge's statements. The government wants a piece of the big Apple pie and will get it one way or another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
The current DoJ is corrupt as hell? Suck on a long big pile of bullspit. The prior DoJ was Hooverian by comparison.
Have you just awoken from a multi year coma? I have to assume that you have not been following the news and current events at all, since the current DOJ is involved in a whole slew of nasty scandals, far worse than anything before. I wouldn't be surprised if we see some people ending up behind bars eventually, hopefully starting from the top and going down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
I commend you for this and would encourage everyone to do the same, but keep in mind that the who's who of our communications are highly informative by themselves and even encrypted e-mail still includes the addresses of the sender and recipient(s) in clear text within the message header. Similarly, the call logs obtained by the NSA reveal the networks of people we all communicate with and yield important information about our individual activities without the need to intercept the actual conversations.
I fully agree, and am aware of what you're saying.
Even if they only have the metadata, then they actually have a whole lot. You can know somebody's every move from piecing together just the metadata.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Apparently the DoJ are using this to infer "intent".
"Thought crimes" are here, it looks like Orwell was out by three decades.
Good point, but it is actually six and a bit decades... Orwell finished writing "Nineteen Eighty-Four" in 1949.
Yeah, but "2014" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
Does that include the "intent" to offer new releases at lower prices?
This does look bad for the DoJ.
As to those criticizing Holder -- as much as I dislike the guy, there is such a slim chance that he had any actual input into going forward with this. The DoJ is gigantic, with a vast number of divisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Have you just awoken from a multi year coma? I have to assume that you have not been following the news and current events at all, since the current DOJ is involved in a whole slew of nasty scandals, far worse than anything before. I wouldn't be surprised if we see some people ending up behind bars eventually, hopefully starting from the top and going down.
Actually, most of these scandals weren't actual scandals. And few of them have to do with the DoJ.
But now we're veering WAY off-topic.
I did not mean to imply otherwise. I should have been more clear.
Point remains, the rest of us do not have that privilege during their investigation. Nor can we turnabout and prosecute or sue them for it. "Justice" right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
The current DoJ is corrupt as hell? Suck on a long big pile of bullspit. The prior DoJ was Hooverian by comparison.
A lot of their political hires are still there, unfortunately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman
What it shows is Steve Jobs' intent. If he wasn't thinking about getting the publishers to change their deals with Amazon, he would not have written it in the first place. That he never sent it shows that it occurred to him that putting that into writing was not such a good idea.
No, it doesn't show intent. What it shows is that Jobs entertained certain ideas at some point, but abandoned them. In fact, the fact that he didn't send it, but sent an entirely different email shows intent of the opposite of what the DoJ argues.
Sorry, but "thinking about" something isn't illegal, especially when you obviously abandoned that line of thought.
That the DoJ pretends this is a smoking gun, and the Judge doesn't want to hear the evidence, now, that shows intent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB
I did not mean to imply otherwise. I should have been more clear.
Point remains, the rest of us do not have that privilege [of lying] during their investigation. Nor can we turnabout and prosecute or sue them for it. "Justice" right?
That's why you should never talk to "investigators", especially not without your lawyer present, and even then you should probably assert your 5th Amendment rights. Even an inadvertent misstatement could turn into a prosecution for lying to them.
What's latin for "It's the thought that counts"? Perhaps they need to etch that under Lady Justice since it seems to be their new motto.
Plenty of folks smarter and more lawyered up than me have fallen prey to this. Hard to prove an honest mistatement wasn't intent to lie. Justice is just another protection racket, regardless of who tops the Executive Branch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Sorry, but "thinking about" something isn't illegal, especially when you obviously abandoned that line of thought.The problem is, it isn't "obvious" that he abandoned that line of thought, merely that he thought better about putting that thought in writing. If he acted consistent with that thought, even if he was never again dumb enough to write it down or be recorded saying it, then the DOJ can show that A) He had that thought, and
Remember, the publishers did impose agency pricing on Amazon. The DOJ has now shown the other end of the chain, that Steve Jobs was thinking about trying to get that to happen. Now the question is, did he/Apple act to make that happen? I don't know. If they can prove intent (they have), action (unknown), and results (obvious), then they will have proven illegal collusion. If they can't prove that Steve/Apple acted to make his thought into reality, then they should not win.
You're all kidding on this "the evil gov'mt got these emails"? DOJ got this information the old fashioned way -- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, more specifically Part V - Discovery. The FRCP was first implemented in 1938, the purpose of which was to allow all sides to a legal dispute to have access to each side's information prior to trial. Every state now has similar rules, and similar rules apply in criminal proceedings both in federal and state proceedings.
Actually I think the Government is trying to save the printing and wholesale distributor business. Honestly the only reason to fight this hard about something as stupid as this is they government must be afraid another heavy industry like printing companies will go by the waste side if people favor low cost e-books over a traditional book. They do not want to see people loose their jobs at printing companies. Why else presue this, so Amazon and keep giving away books at below market prices.