AnonymousPerson
@optonline.net
| reply to rrz103
Re: Spamhaus's Solicitor Should be Canned
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. |
|
rrz103
RichardZ
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Canton, MI | reply to AnonymousPerson
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 |
|
AnonymousPerson
@optonline.net
| reply to rrz103
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. |
|
stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
 ·Verizon BroadbandA..
| reply to rrz103
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. |
|
rrz103
RichardZ
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Canton, MI
2 edits | reply to AnonymousPerson
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 |
|
