Mt. Gox CEO Karpeles refuses travel to U.S. for questioning

Whether or not you believe that it is necessary, it is a routine demand in lawsuits, not evidence of some special government conspiracy to arrest Karpeles.

> or for the corporation's designated representative in court to be a specific individual rather than an attorney hired for that purpose.

This isn't about a "corporation's designated representative", its about a witness with first-hand knowledge of relevant facts. The corporation's designated representative will be a lawyer hired for the purpose, but they obviously are not a suitable witness.

> I am not one who believes that physical custody of a witness is either necessary or sufficient to obtain truthful statements from him.

Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant to what can reasonably be concluded from the fact of someone asking for it in a context where it is completely normal without any special conspiracy aimed at arrest.

Yes, if the world was usually run on your personal preferences, then this might be an unusual request that justifies some kind of conspiratorial conclusion. But in the real world we actually live in, it is not.

No, its the Federal judiciary. The particular bankruptcy court happens to be located in Texas (US Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas). People often confuse federal courts located in a state with state courts, but they are not at all the same thing, and have nothing to do with the state government.

The purpose of a deposition isn't to elicit information as quickly as possible. That can be held by document requests responded to by email. The purpose of a deposition is to take the sworn testimony of the witness and to record various aspects of their testimony ahead of a trial. Most importantly, demeanor and other side information that isn't properly conveyed by a video deposition. One of the most important concerns, especially with a defendant accused of fraud--is ensuring that the defendant is offering their own answers, and is not merely reading scripted answers from out of the camera's view.

You may find that some people are more forthcoming when a grim-faced person in a robe, with armed men ready to mete out punishment at a word, is not the one demanding answers.

That's cute. You actually think a deposition is where a judge asks questions while the bailiff stands menacingly over the witness? Here's a clue: depositions are conducted by the parties themselves without the assistance of the court. Most depositions are held at the law offices of either the plaintiff or the defendant; the only 3rd-party present is the courtroom reporter who, despite the name, is actually a non-court affiliated commercial service provider licensed to transcribe depositions. At most, the judge will participate in a deposition only if the parties call him to resolve a legal dispute. Bailiffs do not participate in depositions under any circumstances.

An oath is not necessary for that. It suffices to say, "If you misrepresent the facts here, we will punish you for it in addition to whatever may be decided in this case. Do you understand?" and for the witness to say "Yes".

If a fact as stated in a deposition is discovered to actually be false, the armed men and iron bars do come into play. Don't make the mistake that just because they are not physically present and visible at the time that the threat of them is not important while someone is being deposed.

I can't tell if you are an apologist for the system, eliding over its obvious flaws, or someone genuinely clueless about theories of trust.

Either way, some cross-disciplinary study of the development of moral behavior in primates may be useful. Imagine asking young children of varying ages whether they took the cookie from the table in the room with the hidden camera, and asking the follow-up question about whether they were lying or not.

After having done so, you may realize that most court procedures operate on the principle that people make moral choices based upon fear of retribution after getting caught. This is entirely unsuitable for people at different stages of moral development from the median, such as children, retarded adults, sociopaths, geniuses, sociologists, atheists, autistics, and philosophers. The implied courtroom intimidation tactics just don't work.

There are several reasons why. Telling the truth as you know it is not an absolute defense against being punished anyway. The only information the court may have about something may be what you tell them. The measure for credibility is not how true something is, but how believable it is. The punishment for lying may be less than the punishment for telling the truth. My cartel enforcer can punish me to a greater extent than the court's enforcers. Etcetera.