Re: Fwd: Can the USA welcome IETF (was: Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning Dean Anderson (reissued))

[Dean Anderson <[e-mail]>]

This is not my response to the PR Action.

Mr. Mendez raises a valid point of jurisprudence regarding the fairness of this
PR-Action.  The point he raises is called "double jeopardy". The US recognizes
this principle in criminal court cases. This is not a criminal court case, but
it is similar in that rights of a defendant are in jeopardy.

The IETF, as part of the ISOC, has an explicitly stated fiduciary duty (a legal
obligation) to act in the interest of the public trust, (IE the public
interest), and to be "fair, open, and inclusive".  The ISOC (and thus the IETF)  
is incorporated in the US, and subject to US law.

Mr. Kessens is plainly conflicted, being a party to some of the issues which are
the subject of the PR-Action.  In other words, it is as though the prosecutor is
prosecuting an alleged crime against the prosecutor.  Suppose you trespass in
the prosecutor's yard. That prosecutor cannot file charges, it would be an
unethical abuse of office. But this is what Kessens did. And it is not the first
abuse of his office.

My research so far indicates that there are other unreported conflicts and
irregularities in the PR-Actions against Dean Anderson.

For the time being, I am withholding release of my response pending advice of my
attorney.

		--Dean


On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Eduardo Mendez wrote:

> I corrected error (underlined). Apologies.
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Eduardo Mendez <[e-mail]>
> Date: 17-oct-2005 16:27
> Subject: Re: Can the USA welcome IETF (was: Last Call under RFC 3683
> concerning Dean Anderson (reissued))
> To: David Kessens <[e-mail]>
> 
> 
> 2005/10/17, David Kessens <[e-mail]>:
> > I don't appreciate your suggestion that there could be another motive
> > for reissuing the Last Call as the explanation in the note that
> > accompanied the reissued Last Call message was quite clear in it's
> > motivation.
> 
> Mr. David,
> I am sorry you do not appreciate.
> This is may be we do not share the same culture.
> Every culture is to be respected.
> 
> For your information. There are other countries when the procescutor
> makes such a mistake it kils the procescution. This protects the
> rights of the accused person.
> 
> What you did increases the rights of the accusator.
> You also are the victim, a law maker, a judge, and an appeal judge.
> There are countries where you must ask another AD to procescute.
> 
> There are countries where one is not allowed to say:
>  "Mr. X did wrong".
> One must say:
> "Mr. X seems to have done wrong".
> Or Mr. X can sue you and win.
> Everyone is innocent; except when the Judge said he is not.
> And there is no appeal.
> ---------------------------
> Sorry: I mean. "and you stay innoncent until the end of the appeal".
> 
> So, sorry if I hurt you.
> 
> Eduardo Mendez
> 
> > The Last Call was reissued since the first message was inadvertently
> > send to the the IETF announce list (where all other IETF Last Call
> > messages are send) instead of the IETF discussion list as specified by
> > RFC 3683. It seemed prudent to reset the Last Call timer to avoid any
> > conflicts on whether the Last Call would have been of sufficient
> > duration.
> 
> NB. You created a conflict on duration: it is too long.
> "Sufficient" is a word like if you had made your mind as a Juge.
> In true Justice lawyers would use it.
> Your rights can be defended only if you defend the rights of everyone?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.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
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf