http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r17063657 en Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:53:01 EDT Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:53:01 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17124482 anon : I agree. The way they mishandled this case makes no sense. I say kudos to e360 and their lawyers, Synergy Law Group, for playing by the (legal) rules and winning. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17124482 Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:34:44 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17067517 anon : It was just an example to illustrate that based on a precedent.

Anyway, since this is a federal court that is handling the case, this entire conversion is more hypothetical any it is anything else; I just wish that I knew that it was in a federal court before I posted the first message. From how things on broadbandreports.com read, it appeared to be a state court.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17067517 Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:29:47 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17066022 rrz103 : Besides the fact that we're not talking about slavery here, I did qualify my statement about the FF&C Clause by saying "in most instances."
--
Rich Z - »www.richardz.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17066022 Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:36:22 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17065748 anon : I did dnot realize that it was a district court that made the order. I had thought that it was an Illinois court, as people kept saying Illinois.

Anyway, the full faith and credit clause does not extend to everything, as if one state was to institute slavery, the others would not have to recognize it, as was true prior to the War of Southern Secession.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17065748 Wed, 11 Oct 2006 06:56:48 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17064814 stufried : First, I never suggested tat I thought that Spamhaus should ignore the US order. I said to the contrary. A UK order, however, would put them in a better position.

First, the order would have equal weight o a US order (in theory) outside the US. If you start serving the order around the world, a number of companies would simply say that they were not getting involved.

Second, it would demonstrate good faith and possible help with the contempt issue.

Third, it would help on the floor of the U.N.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17064814 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:47:30 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17063657 rrz103 : I'm sorry but you're wrong on more than a few points:

First of all, this matter is in FEDERAL COURT in Illinois. Specifically, the United States District Court Northern Illinois Eastern Division. This is NOT a state court. In fact, here's a link to the Federal judge overseeing this case [http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/JUDGE/KOCORAS/cpkpage.htm]. To understand how I came to the conclusion that this is under the jurisdiction of a Federal Court, view this motion submitted by E360 and look at the caption (top of the very first page).

Second, even if this was a state court, other states would most likely recognize the order. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution compels this in most instances.

Third, ICANN may be "employed" by the U.S. Federal government but that does not mean that it won't acknowledge a court order. It can and it will (*). If the Feds don't like it, they can intervene but haven't. ICANN is a non-profit corporation based in California that has been contracted by the Feds to manage top-level domains and the like.

Fourth, a court order from an English court isn't invalid but rather unenforceable in the U.S. in most instances (criminal extradition is possible based on factors and is not relevant here).

Finally, your last statement about none of the states or Federal government support this decision is quite frankly baseless. I haven't seen one official statement by any state or federal government on the matter.
--
Rich Z - »www.richardz.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17063657 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:00:09 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17062031 anon : That is an Illinois order, not a US order. A US court order would be from the United States federal government, which is a separate entity from the Illinois State government. The thing is, that the state of Illinois does not have the proper authority to order ICANN to yank spamhaus' records, as ICANN is employed by the federal government, and thus any attempt to coercise it to yank spamhau's is a violation of the sovereignty of the federal government, which the several states (Illinois being one of them) created in unison. The only way that Illinois State could force this upon the federal government is if 3/4 of the States agree with them and thus modify the Constitution to specifically allow this interference in the separation of powers.

To be quite honest, any United Kingdom order is invalid as the Kingdom lacks the proper authority to force anything upon the United States federal government, even more so than Illinois State. There is no need to worry though because Illinois' court order is only effective in Illinois and is not backed by the United States federal government or any of the other States. The only thing that Illinois State can do would be to issue subponeas for spamhaus officials and then and only then would they be able to affect spamhaus throughout the United States as a whole (as the other states must extradite those who have committed crimes in any state and if the executives refuse to come, then they have committed a crime, upon which the other states must extradite them).

To anyone that is from England, I would like to say that the United States of America or any of the several States in the Union except Illinois State, do not support this and it is only Illinois State that supports this; and even then, it is only one judge in the Illinois State judiciary that supports this and chances are that if spamhaus was to write a letter to the Governor of Illinois asking for an executive pardon to resolve this, they would get it in an instant.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17062031 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:02:17 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17061904 rrz103 : I agree. Although litigation can be expensive, Spamhaus should have at least attempted to get the case dismissed based on jurisdictional or other summary judgment grounds. I'm sure they could have garnered enough support to fund the litigation and/or get volunteers (EFF comes to mind).

On top of that, Spamhaus' inaction inadvertently created a unique method of enforcing judgments in the United States against an international business who use an ICANN based domain name. There's another reason to free ICANN from U.S. control (which I don't necessarily agree with).
--
Rich Z - »www.richardz.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17061904 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:27:32 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17061066 stufried : I think the lawyer who told Spamhaus to ignore the Illinois order should be shot. There are too many pathes open to enforce the order.

If, however, you take the position that the Illinois order isn't worth the paper it is printed on, then who cares if Spamhaus is found in contempt. What are they going to, order the UK government to extradite its business license?

If Spamhaus believes the U.S. Court is without jurisdiction, then it should bring an action in the UK against e360 and get an order that the US order is invalid and then start serving that order all around the place as well. If e360 has a court order and Spamhaus has nothing, it will lose the fight.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17061066 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:23:58 EDT