Re: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may becriminallyprosecutable in nature...
"TS Glassey" <email@example.com> Fri, 06 June 2008 13:53 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4497E3A6A94; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 06:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF14C3A6A94; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 06:53:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 mail.ietf.org ([188.8.131.52]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24k4J9g2UcSj; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 06:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net [184.108.40.206]) by core3.amsl.com (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; d=earthlink.net; 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 [220.127.116.11] (helo=tsg1) by elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <firstname.lastname@example.org>) id 1K4cNq-0002sT-78; Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:53:34 -0400
From: "TS Glassey" <email@example.com>
To: "Dean Anderson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "TS Glassey" <email@example.com>
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.
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <firstname.lastname@example.org>, IETF Discussion <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
Reply-To: TS Glassey <email@example.com>
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "TS Glassey" <email@example.com> Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <firstname.lastname@example.org>om>; "IETF Discussion" <email@example.com>rg>; "Harald Alvestrand" <firstname.lastname@example.org>no>; <email@example.com> 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: firstname.lastname@example.org 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@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IETF mailing list >> IETF@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> > > -- > Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? > www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service > 617 344 9000 > > _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: I mentioned once that certain actions of the … TS Glassey
- [Humor] Two Suggestions eburger
- Re: [Humor] Two Suggestions Harald Tveit Alvestrand