Re: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may becriminallyprosecutable in nature...

"TS Glassey" <> Fri, 06 June 2008 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4497E3A6A94; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 06:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF14C3A6A94; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 06:53:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.416
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.416 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.810, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24k4J9g2UcSj; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 06:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 211993A6887; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 06:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327;; b=aRmORSaSYYqxhDORPxTR0tiY0I/HPjE/NvxpjEB3vvIZ4OyPXPe96yCpfVCMP1L2; h=Received:Message-ID:Reply-To:From:To:Cc:References:Subject:Date:Organization:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [] (helo=tsg1) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <>) id 1K4cNq-0002sT-78; Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:53:34 -0400
Message-ID: <000001c8c7dc$b7a6e5c0$0200a8c0@tsg1>
From: "TS Glassey" <>
To: "Dean Anderson" <>, "TS Glassey" <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may becriminallyprosecutable in nature...
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 17:09:01 -0700
Organization: Certichron Inc.
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec798088379e6e49cfd5c9d07fcd87409e08350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <>, IETF Discussion <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: TS Glassey <>
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Yep... and its coming too.

And Phillip - you know I respect you right and your ability, your knowledge 
if IP law and all that... you are brilliant - but in this matter - I 
disagree with you. :-).

Todd Glassey
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dean Anderson" <>
To: "TS Glassey" <>
Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <>om>; "IETF Discussion" 
<>rg>; "Harald Alvestrand" <>no>; <>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may 
becriminallyprosecutable in nature...

> Err, when a Non-profit is involved, defamation is an illegal object that
> may be used as a RICO predicate.
> A RICO activity may merely bring economic harm to the plaintiffs, while
> not providing any direct economic benefit to the defendants. [see Nat'l
> Org. for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 765 F. Supp.  937 (N.D.  Ill. 1991)
> and Scheidler, 968 F.2d 612 (7th Cir. 1992)]
> In the Scheidler case, the RICO action was brought by operators of
> abortion clinics against a coalition of abortion opponents, alleging
> that the abortion foes had engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity
> to interfere with the operations of abortion clinics. The plaintiffs
> alleged, amoung other violations, that the defendant protesters had
> violated the Hobbs Act by using threatened or actual force to damage the
> operations of abortion clinics.  So what the IESG did to me using
> fabricated false claims of misconduct (a libel) could indeed be a basis
> for a RICO offense.
> Also, the threatened and actual force of disrupting my participation and
> the participation of other members who merely oppose the management
> using legitimate means of argument and persuasion of other members, is
> an act performed by the management without a legal right. A PR-Action is
> a violation of ISOC bylaws and charter, and so there is no right to
> "ban" any member of the ISOC from participation in the ISOC, without a
> majority vote by the entire membership. There was no such vote of the
> membership, so this act by the IESG may also violate the Hobbs Act.
> BTW, Vixie et al (I've decided to call them the "Usenet Cabal") just
> tried to disrupt my membership privileges in ARIN, using a fabricated
> pretext. I had to hire a lawyer, but I prevailed, again.  Vixie/Plzak
> also tried to cite IETF actions as a justification for their ARIN
> actions, but of course, didn't note their personal involvement in the
> IETF actions. The Usenet Cabal are just the same people using different
> organizations to harm people who reasonably oppose their objectives.
> P.S. Has anyone ever questioned what qualifications Alvestrand has to be
> in any of the roles he's in?  His ICANN bio doesn't give any technical
> qualifications, and his linkedin page lists some very vague contract
> work with Cisco.
> --Dean
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, TS Glassey wrote:
>> I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may be
>> criminallyprosecutable in nature...Uh sure Phil... but that doesn't
>> change anything.
>> Todd
>>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>>   From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
>>   To: TS Glassey ; IETF Discussion
>>   Cc: Harald Alvestrand
>>   Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:49 AM
>>   Subject: RE: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may 
>> becriminallyprosecutable in nature...
>>   Todd,
>>      This is nonsense, stop it.
>>      Of course IETF communications could give rise to the posibility
>> of criminal prosecutions in certain circumstances. The IESG could in
>> theory plot a murder.
>>      That does not mean that every legal concotion you imagine is
>> backed by criminal sanctions. On the contrary, conspiracy is only a
>> crime if the object of the conspiracy is criminal.
>>      Depriving someone of their 'right' to flame in an Internet forum
>> might under certain circumstances give rise to civil liability. But
>> the right of standards bodies to impose reasonable participation
>> criteria is well established in US law. The participation criteria in
>> the IETF are considerably more inclusive than in OASIS, W3C or IEEE.
>>      There is a place for this argument - alt.flame
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>   From: on behalf of TS Glassey
>>   Sent: Mon 02/06/2008 1:17 PM
>>   To: IETF Discussion
>>   Cc: Harald Alvestrand
>>   Subject: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may be 
>> criminallyprosecutable in nature...
>>   I brought this up a number of times and Harald's solution was to ban me 
>> from
>>   the list. Something that under the US CFAA is prosecutable... His claim 
>> was
>>   that I failed to show him the money - that special case which 
>> establishes
>>   that as a standard.
>>   OK Harald - the case you want to see is called "The United States v 
>> Drew"
>>   and was filed in the District Court of the Central District of 
>> California
>>   (i.e. LA). What it says is that any communications taking place between 
>> two
>>   parties across a State Line may constitute. I am sending you a copy of 
>> that
>>   indictment and the CFAA text under separate cover since its 1/2MB. How 
>> it
>>   plays out is that:
>>       1)    An act of Conspiracy under the terms of the Conspiracy 
>> Statute in
>>   the US is what happens when multiple people agree on something across 
>> an
>>   electronic transport whether in real-time or time-shifted in nature. 
>> The
>>   question is whether that is a conspiracy to hurt people or their rights 
>> in
>>   which case its an issue, or a conspiracy to get together for a dinner 
>> party
>>   which then would be totally cool one would think.
>>       2)    A violation of both civil and criminal statutes of the US 
>> Computer
>>   Fraud and Abuse Act (per the definition in section (a)(2)(B) of a 
>> 'Federal
>>   Interest Computer'.
>>   Unfortunately this makes all of the covert negotiations for PR and 
>> other
>>   actions a crime in the US by my reading. Also one which the IETF and 
>> its
>>   Management including its chair and all AD's and WG Chairs are liable 
>> under.
>>   I think it also makes key parts of the IETF document/IP submission 
>> process
>>   possibly criminally prosecutable as well. Jorge - Any thoughts as the 
>> IETF's
>>   Attorney?
>>   As to what to do about this - I suggest that its time for a set of 
>> lawyers
>>   who are not retained and paid by the IETF to formally review the IETF's
>>   processes for conflicts and flaws therein.
>>   regards,
>>   Todd Glassey CISM CIFI
>>   _______________________________________________
>>   IETF mailing list
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>   _______________________________________________
>>   IETF mailing list
> -- 
> Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
>         faster, more reliable, better service
> 617 344 9000

IETF mailing list