3 ms·
> Thompson hasn't just refused to answer questions, the court ruled: He's also violated the requirement that he "assist" the parties by refusing to execute a li
by Analemma_ 6y ago
> Thompson hasn't just refused to answer questions, the court ruled: He's also violated the requirement that he "assist" the parties by refusing to execute a limited power of attorney to allow that Belizean trust [which Thompsons says owns the coins] to be examined, as required under his plea deal.
It's pretty clear this isn't a case of forgetting. Courts are not as stupid and gullible as tech people sometimes like to pretend.
- emilfihlman 6y agoYou are entirely missing the point. He could be co-operating just fine but if the judge decides "we don't believe you" that's it.
- simonh 6y agoThis went to appeal and his appeal was rejected in precisely this point. He is not cooperating. It’s not just about him refusing to give information, he’s also refusing to perform actions required by the court, specifically exercising his power of attorney.
- Waterluvian 6y agoInteresting that a court with the power to imprison him indefinitely lacks the power to just kind of invoke power of attorney.
- staticman2 6y agoThe power of attorney is for another country where the court has no jurisdiction.
- emilfihlman 6y agoIsn't there a self discrimination protection clause? Ie you can't be compelled to disclose information that would discriminate you?
- darkerside 6y agoNo, he's refusing to cooperate by signing the LPOA
- emilfihlman 6y agoYou are _missing the point_. He could be signing that just fine but if the judge goes "nuh uh" that's it. Not to mention that isn't there a self discrimination protection clause? Ie you can't be compelled to disclose information that would discriminate you?
- darkerside 6y agoWhat? Yes, I must be missing the point. He's not signing it, and if he did, he would not be in contempt any longer. I don't know why he won't sign it if the only reason for not supplying the coins is that he can't find them or remember where they are. This probably doesn't apply to self incrimination because it's not evidence of a crime, it is property whose ownership is in dispute.