Slander from Google

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Google" doesn't 'do' anything other than automatically forward posts
>> to usenet and/or store messages in Google-groups for retirieval.
>> There is nobody involved. The material is originated by someone not
>> associated with Google. Those are the people you need to track down.
>> Your lawyer should get a court order to get Google (or better, the
>> offenders ISP) to reveal who they are.
>>
>> I'm not saying you shouldn't persue this, I'm saying you should persue
>> the originator. Google is just the messenger.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alan
>>
> You've missed it again. The word forward is the key.
> Technically speaking HTTP is not NNTP and therefore to accept anonymous
> posts in one protocol and on one port (http) and convert it to another
> protocol then forward it to Usenet hosts on a different port is
> (according to my $760 legal opinion) the modern day equivilant of
> publishing and delivering a 'publication' for the purpose of
> communicating information.

I do understand the reasoning, I don't believe a court will hold it up. Google
will defend itself as being a well known search engine and repository of
information both right and wrong.

--did you track down the originating ISP?
--did you ask them to remove the offending info?
--did you ask your lawyer to get a court order against that ISP to reveal who
the IP belonged to?

> Most of the posters who offer their opinions on such diverse topics as
> my mental health and the hungry starving children of the world needing
> my money more than lawyers, have never actually put up the bucks to find
> out if their opinion is valid or not. I have.

My opinion stands that the originator is the problem, not Google. Leave it at that.

Good luck.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:

> I really do appreciate all the cross chatter from everyone. What has
> prompted this quest for justice is the fact my on-line store was
> attacked by this cretin with allegations of fraud and theft of credit
> card numbers. My wife (A licensed gaming officer) lost her job when
> someone showed one of the post to her boss and I just downright don't
> agree with anyone doing this because I criticized their photography.


If she was incorrectly dimissed, then sue her former employer. Did you bring
this up with your lawyer?


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Good Luck Doug.

--
Dave




"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:36ssqsF55os7tU1@individual.net...

| You've missed it again. The word forward is the key.
| Technically speaking HTTP is not NNTP and therefore to accept anonymous
| posts in one protocol and on one port (http) and convert it to another
| protocol then forward it to Usenet hosts on a different port is
| (according to my $760 legal opinion) the modern day equivilant of
| publishing and delivering a 'publication' for the purpose of
| communicating information.
|
| Most of the posters who offer their opinions on such diverse topics as
| my mental health and the hungry starving children of the world needing
| my money more than lawyers, have never actually put up the bucks to find
| out if their opinion is valid or not. I have.
|
| I dare say the ongoing research my lawyers are doing will sooner or
| later turn up some identity of who actually controls Google. So far it's
| a garden path waltz through many countries, local corporations and
| holding companies. You can't just sue "Google".
|
| They (whoever the ultimate owners of Google are) have created a
| minefield of deception to make it very hard for anyone seeking to do
| this. The discovery process of who actually to server the documents on
| is what stops most people due to it's cost. It'll have to get might
| expensive to stop this little Aussie.
|
| I really do appreciate all the cross chatter from everyone. What has
| prompted this quest for justice is the fact my on-line store was
| attacked by this cretin with allegations of fraud and theft of credit
| card numbers. My wife (A licensed gaming officer) lost her job when
| someone showed one of the post to her boss and I just downright don't
| agree with anyone doing this because I criticized their photography.
|
| Hell, enough of you lot have had your say about me and my opinions,
| methods and techniques. We're all fair game here but not when a person
| takes sniper shots at you from behind a corporation offering to conceal
| sources to all and sundry then refuses to even provide a process for
| complaint, much less listen to any. It has taken nearly 9 months to
| contact and interview everyone who ever bought from my store before I
| took it down. I really don't care if it takes another 9 years to find
| the bastard, it'll happen.
|
| Governments hell bent on decency instead of war should be doing what I
| am. Unfortunately no country except China seems to have moved fast
| enough to formulate laws to control this sort of thing. It is fortunate
| in this instance that in Australia at any rate, laws do exist which can
| be used by individuals to defend themselves and the Free Trade Agreement
| we have with the USA makes it easier to cross national legal boundaries.
|
| Doug

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:28:50 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>I really do appreciate all the cross chatter from everyone. What has
>prompted this quest for justice is the fact my on-line store was
>attacked by this cretin with allegations of fraud and theft of credit
>card numbers. My wife (A licensed gaming officer) lost her job when
>someone showed one of the post to her boss and I just downright don't
>agree with anyone doing this because I criticized their photography.

Maybe you should be suing her employers instead of living your life on
usenet. Unless there is some truth in it you would have a much better
case against them...innocent until proven guilty, etc.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You've missed it again. The word forward is the key.
> Technically speaking HTTP is not NNTP and therefore to accept anonymous
> posts in one protocol and on one port (http) and convert it to another
> protocol then forward it to Usenet hosts on a different port is
> (according to my $760 legal opinion) the modern day equivilant of
> publishing and delivering a 'publication' for the purpose of
> communicating information.

Your $760 legal opinion is completely absurd, lacking any basis whatsoever
in the technical reality of how the process works.

Yes, I am an expert in the field.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Google" doesn't 'do' anything other than automatically forward
>> posts to usenet and/or store messages in Google-groups for
>> retirieval. There is nobody involved. The material is originated
>> by someone not associated with Google. Those are the people you need
>> to track down. Your lawyer should get a court order to get Google
>> (or better, the offenders ISP) to reveal who they are.
>>
>> I'm not saying you shouldn't persue this, I'm saying you should
>> persue the originator. Google is just the messenger.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alan
>>
> You've missed it again. The word forward is the key.
> Technically speaking HTTP is not NNTP and therefore to accept
> anonymous posts in one protocol and on one port (http) and convert it
> to another protocol then forward it to Usenet hosts on a different
> port is (according to my $760 legal opinion) the modern day
> equivilant of publishing and delivering a 'publication' for the
> purpose of communicating information.
>
> Most of the posters who offer their opinions on such diverse topics as
> my mental health and the hungry starving children of the world needing
> my money more than lawyers, have never actually put up the bucks to
> find out if their opinion is valid or not. I have.
>
> I dare say the ongoing research my lawyers are doing will sooner or
> later turn up some identity of who actually controls Google. So far
> it's a garden path waltz through many countries, local corporations
> and holding companies. You can't just sue "Google".
>
> They (whoever the ultimate owners of Google are) have created a
> minefield of deception to make it very hard for anyone seeking to do
> this. The discovery process of who actually to server the documents on
> is what stops most people due to it's cost. It'll have to get might
> expensive to stop this little Aussie.
>
> I really do appreciate all the cross chatter from everyone. What has
> prompted this quest for justice is the fact my on-line store was
> attacked by this cretin with allegations of fraud and theft of credit
> card numbers. My wife (A licensed gaming officer) lost her job when
> someone showed one of the post to her boss and I just downright don't
> agree with anyone doing this because I criticized their photography.
>
> Hell, enough of you lot have had your say about me and my opinions,
> methods and techniques. We're all fair game here but not when a person
> takes sniper shots at you from behind a corporation offering to
> conceal sources to all and sundry then refuses to even provide a
> process for complaint, much less listen to any. It has taken nearly 9
> months to contact and interview everyone who ever bought from my
> store before I took it down. I really don't care if it takes another
> 9 years to find the bastard, it'll happen.
>
> Governments hell bent on decency instead of war should be doing what I
> am. Unfortunately no country except China seems to have moved fast
> enough to formulate laws to control this sort of thing. It is
> fortunate in this instance that in Australia at any rate, laws do
> exist which can be used by individuals to defend themselves and the
> Free Trade Agreement we have with the USA makes it easier to cross
> national legal boundaries.
> Doug

Ah. I see. _That_ kind of small car.

--
Frank ess

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 2/8/05 4:28 PM, in article 36ssqsF55os7tU1@individual.net, "Ryadia"
<ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:


> They (whoever the ultimate owners of Google are) have created a
> minefield of deception to make it very hard for anyone seeking to do
> this. The discovery process of who actually to server the documents on
> is what stops most people due to it's cost. It'll have to get might
> expensive to stop this little Aussie.
>
> Hell, enough of you lot have had your say about me and my opinions,
> methods and techniques. We're all fair game here but not when a person
> takes sniper shots at you from behind a corporation offering to conceal
> sources to all and sundry then refuses to even provide a process for
> complaint, much less listen to any. It has taken nearly 9 months to
> contact and interview everyone who ever bought from my store before I
> took it down. I really don't care if it takes another 9 years to find
> the bastard, it'll happen.
>
> Governments hell bent on decency instead of war should be doing what I
> am. Unfortunately no country except China seems to have moved fast
> enough to formulate laws to control this sort of thing. It is fortunate
> in this instance that in Australia at any rate, laws do exist which can
> be used by individuals to defend themselves and the Free Trade Agreement
> we have with the USA makes it easier to cross national legal boundaries.
>
> Doug
I am going to wade in on this one time only with just a few comments (I
don't wish to enter the full scale war)!
First, I would be every bit as upset and angry as you if something like this
happened to me and I hope you find the bastard. But -
Lawyers like to go after 'deep pockets' do you suppose, that just maybe,
that is why the name Google comes up more than the real culprit? Those deep
pockets also mean that they can hire more lawyers than perhaps you can!
Finally, if your suit or anyone else's similar suit were successful would
any of us like the new Internet that would exist afterward? I picture all
ISP's and all of the Google's of the world with teams of censors cleaning
the Internet of of any hint of any discouraging word. Half of the posts
currently on Usenet would never make it. And who would pay for all of that -
all of us would.
Why not spend your money on technical experts who can actually determine who
the bastard is so that you can sue the real villain?
Chuck

 

[Charles]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <BE2EB0AA.192DA%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com>, C Wright
<wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:

> But - Lawyers like to go after 'deep pockets' do you suppose, that
> just maybe, that is why the name Google comes up more than the real
> culprit? Those deep pockets also mean that they can hire more
> lawyers than perhaps you can!

Possibly the lawyers are hoping Google will go for an out of court
settlement.

--
Charles

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
>
>
> Surely Google would need a physical presence in Australia for this to
> work?
>
> ...eg, the US will sink any ships heading this way with Armed
> Australian Bailiffs on board.
>
> Even if you do win, you can't get the money, so why bother filing?
>
> --
> Owamanga!

If you think this is about money, you couldn't be further from the
truth. This is about a principal. All the world wars were over
principals, people die defending them. Far more for me to lose than just
money. My reputation, My wife's reputation and my family's standing in
the community. My daughter's business, my own business.

If you think you can put a price on integrity, you really need to
reassess your own principals. If people don't trust your honesty and
integrity, how are you going to run a business which relies on them
doing that? As for sinking the ship? We have a Free Trade Agreement with
the USA which prevents that from happening!

Doug

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:

>
> If you think this is about money, you couldn't be further from the
> truth. This is about a principal. All the world wars were over
> principals, people die defending them. Far more for me to lose than just

principle



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

> If you think you can put a price on integrity, you really need to
> reassess your own principals.

My principal in high school was a real bastard. Always gave me detention.

If you're talking about principles, though, it escapes me why you would
want to go after Google rather than the person who actually did something
to you.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36stebF55q319U1@individual.net...
> If you think this is about money, you couldn't be further from the truth.
> This is about a principal.

Which school does he work for?

> All the world wars were over principals, people die defending them.

When I was in school, a lot of people didn't like the principal, so I don't
know why anyone would fight to the death to defend one.

> If you think you can put a price on integrity, you really need to reassess
> your own principals.

My high school principal was actually a decent guy. He was fair.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:

>If you think this is about money, you couldn't be further from the
>truth. This is about a principal.

Well, then, your problem is solved! Just go to the school board and
get that principal fired!

>All the world wars were over principals, people die defending them.

Oh come now. Schools didn't even have principals until the Prussian
Method of school organization was introduced.

>If you think you can put a price on integrity, you really need to
>reassess your own principals.

I am out of school, and thus have no principal to assess or reassess.
Is it OK if I reassess my CEO instead?

>If people don't trust your honesty and integrity, how are you going
>to run a business which relies on them doing that?

But what of the lawyers reading this? They run a business which
relies on their dishonesty and lack of integrity - as you will
discover for yourself if you sue a large corporation.


--
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will
just be a completely unintentional side effect."
-Linus Torvalds

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:38:00 +0000 (GMT), bhk@dsl.co.uk (Brian
{Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:

>On Tuesday, in article
> <c2nh011a863rc3i71e7nrlfhpqs0v685o1@4ax.com>
> nomail@hotmail.com "Owamanga" wrote:
>
>> Surely Google would need a physical presence in Australia for this to
>> work?
>>
>> ...eg, the US will sink any ships heading this way with Armed
>> Australian Bailiffs on board.
>>
>> Even if you do win, you can't get the money, so why bother filing?
>
>It seems to have escaped your notice that google.com.au exists, and
>certainly appears to be located Down-under. As such, it could be
>bankrupted; what would the SEC think about /that/ (they already seem to
>have a rather circumspect attitude towards Google)?
>
>Ditto for google.co.uk.

All of those domains, I believe, are simply aliases; Google has a
complicated algorithm for working out which server to actually connect
you to, but I don't think which domain name you use makes any
difference; it just determines which user interface you get. Whether
Google has actual hardware in Australis I don't know, but the
existence of google.com.au tells you nothing about that one way or the
other. Nor does it tell you whether there is a separate incorporated
entity in Australia; I don't see any reason why there should be.

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Kibo informs me that Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca>
stated that:

>To my knowledge no internet company has been found liable for content posted via
>its services.

Incorrect:
<http://www.sourceuk.net/indexf.html?00794>

In my opinion, Googles negligence in failing to take fairly simple
technical measures to kick the troll off their system leaves them wide
open to a similar action.

> OTOH, they usually will cooperate with the police or a court
>order to provide details about the offending poster. Your lawyer will probably
>need to get a court order in your home state/province and send that to Google
>(or better, the offenders ISP if that is clear from the Google header). They
>will provide what data they can.

The posts come via hijacked proxies.

>Put it in this context, if a television reporter makes a libelous statement
>about you on camera without anything to back it up, you can sue him and the
>station; if the station shows tape of some person making a libelous statement
>about you, then you can sue the person making the statement but not the station
>or reporter.

You're forgetting about the forgeries - they count too.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Lionel wrote:

> Kibo informs me that Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca>
> stated that:
>
>
>>To my knowledge no internet company has been found liable for content posted via
>>its services.
>
>
> Incorrect:
> <http://www.sourceuk.net/indexf.html?00794>

No. Correct. They weren't found liable for the posting, they were found liable
for not removing the posting at Godfrey's request. Quotes from same source:

--"He requested that the posting be removed. Unfortunately, Demon failed to take
action and the posting continued to be available on its news server until it
expired in the usual way ten days later."

--"It <Demon> was successful in claiming that it was merely involved as an
operator or provider of access to a communications system through which the
statement was made available."

That 2nd quote is something Doug should pay attention to. Further, Doug should
be making efforts to have the slanderous/libelous info removed to show he is
making an effort outside the court to protect his integrity.

>
> In my opinion, Googles negligence in failing to take fairly simple
> technical measures to kick the troll off their system leaves them wide
> open to a similar action.
>
>
>> OTOH, they usually will cooperate with the police or a court
>>order to provide details about the offending poster. Your lawyer will probably
>>need to get a court order in your home state/province and send that to Google
>>(or better, the offenders ISP if that is clear from the Google header). They
>>will provide what data they can.
>
>
> The posts come via hijacked proxies.

That's what "...provide what data they can." means. You would be silly to take
to court evidence that is not clearly/cleanly linked to the originator.

>
>
>>Put it in this context, if a television reporter makes a libelous statement
>>about you on camera without anything to back it up, you can sue him and the
>>station; if the station shows tape of some person making a libelous statement
>>about you, then you can sue the person making the statement but not the station
>>or reporter.
>
>
> You're forgetting about the forgeries - they count too.

Forgeries can be shown to be such in most cases. The plaintiff would have to
show the headers in detail tracing the posting to the originator. You can forge
headers to some degree, but there will be something incorrect about the header
that will reveal it didn't come from where the (innocent in this case) defendant
typically posts on the NG's.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Pedro]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Could this thread be termed Off Topic. Slander refers only to spoken
statements, written statements of defamation are libel.

Just a thought . . . . .

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36ne4aF52uvklU1@individual.net...
> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
> publisher of slander and defamation.
>
> For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
> continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
> their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
> Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up to
> the court date.
>
> Douglas MacDonald
>
> --
> The Eulogy of Australia's last WW1 soldier...
> Passed away at age 106.
> "Love many, trust few, and always paddle your own canoe"
> Thank you Digger, may you Rest in Peace.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Kibo informs me that Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> stated that:

>Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You've missed it again. The word forward is the key.
>> Technically speaking HTTP is not NNTP and therefore to accept anonymous
>> posts in one protocol and on one port (http) and convert it to another
>> protocol then forward it to Usenet hosts on a different port is
>> (according to my $760 legal opinion) the modern day equivilant of
>> publishing and delivering a 'publication' for the purpose of
>> communicating information.
>
>Your $760 legal opinion is completely absurd, lacking any basis whatsoever
>in the technical reality of how the process works.
>
>Yes, I am an expert in the field.

Australian law? - I doubt it. As for American law, here's something the
American Bar Association has said about the implications of the British
Godfrey v Demon Internet case:
<http://www.abanet.org/forums/communication/comlawyer/fall99/stephens.html>

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Lionel <nop@alt.net> wrote:

>>Yes, I am an expert in the field.
>
> Australian law? - I doubt it.

In the technical operation of Usenet, which, as I know you know, bears no
resemblance to the nonsense he's rambling about.

I fully agree that something should be done about the Google problem, but
this most definitely is not it.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

Kibo informs me that Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> stated that:

>Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you think you can put a price on integrity, you really need to
>> reassess your own principals.
>
>My principal in high school was a real bastard. Always gave me detention.
>
>If you're talking about principles, though, it escapes me why you would
>want to go after Google rather than the person who actually did something
>to you.

There are plenty of mentally-ill people out there who would do similar
things to our troll, given the opportunity. Google gives them that
opportunity, & doesn't provide any recourse for the victims of such
behaviour.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

In article <36stebF55q319U1@individual.net>, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>
>If you think this is about money, you couldn't be further from the
>truth. This is about a principal. All the world wars were over
>principals, people die defending them. Far more for me to lose than just

What connection is there between your situation and a school official?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

"David Bostwick" <david.bostwick@chemistry.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:cud6f8$p4j$1@news-int2.gatech.edu...
> In article <36stebF55q319U1@individual.net>, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >
> >If you think this is about money, you couldn't be further from the
> >truth. This is about a principal. All the world wars were over
> >principals, people die defending them. Far more for me to lose than just
>
> What connection is there between your situation and a school official?

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

Lionel wrote:

> Sorry, but no. Australian courts have /already/ ruled against an
> American company for defaming an Australian citizen on their website,
&
> the verdict held:

In the Gutnick case, Dow Jones was responsible for the content both
under U.S. and Australian law. That is not the case here.

Also in the Gutnick case, the plaintiff specifically limited his
case to Australian readers.

Feel free to try, though. It's your money, and I don't have any
connection to or financial interest in google.

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-of...@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

> I was referring to a question about the jurisdiction of Australian
> courts. Take a look at Godfrey v Demon Internet for the Usenet
> situation. Combining the two precedent-setting cases, & it's obvious
> that the present situation is covered.

Read the Godfrey case again. It strongly hints that a U.K. court
would honor the protections granted to U.S. ISP's, but that
Parliment did not grant the same protection to U.K. ISP's.
Furthermore, the settlement before jury trial limits the
precential value of the case.

Did you ask Google to remove the offending post? Or did you
try to get a court order against alias.net?

> >Also in the Gutnick case, the plaintiff specifically limited his
> >case to Australian readers.
> That applies to Usenet defamtion as well, as Usenet & Google are both
> available to a worldwide audience.

Yep. The Gutnick case says you can sue Google in Australia for
all of the people who read the offending post via Google in
Australia, assuming the court follows Godfrey for some reason
and decides that Google is responsible for the content provided
by an anonymous poster. As I said, it's your money, and I'm
sure some attorney will be happy to take it.

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

Lionel wrote in X-NO-ARCHIVE Message-ID:
<20ng01tced6k2js4top5f0f484h8p3g8lr@4ax.com>

> >Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action
> >> against Google as the publisher of slander and
> >> defamation. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a
> >> post from Google to join with me in a law suite. I will
> >> cover your legal costs up to the court date.
>
> Great work, Douglas.
> I would love to take you up on your generous offer. Would
> you please email me to tell me what I need to do?

Have fun, guys !
))