A Rochester Hills man who says he learned of his wife's affair by reading her e-mail on their computer faces trial Feb. 7 on felony computer misuse charges.

Details.

Guess it depends on how he got her password. I'd also like to read the text of the law he is being prosecuted under.

I was asking the question in a more metaphysical sense.

He got it because she'd written it on the cover of a book left by the bed, as I recall. And the "nefarious purposes" that her lawyers claims he put the emails to was filing for emergency custody of his son after finding that she was having an affair with her ex who used to beat her in front of the kids. I would stay FAR out of this one and leave it to the family courts to hash out.

From a purely metaphysical standpoint, I would not prosecute this case because I remain unconvinced that this suspect exists independent of my own subjective perceptions.

Werner Heisenberg's got nothing on David Newell.

Of course, there can only be one--anything else is a figment of the solitary brain's imagination. It is very perplexing . . . .and lonely!

I wonder how long before this becomes a defense tactic?

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. You cannot convict this man/woman because you cannot be certain he/she exists outside of and independent of your own perception."

Well, when the Chewbacca defense fails . . .

And I am also leary, from a purely philosophical standpoint, of prosecuting someone for metaphysical graffiti.

[This message was edited by David Newell on 12-28-10 at .]