[191073] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Zayo Extortion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mel Beckman)
Tue Aug 16 21:24:50 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>
To: Jonathan Hall <jhall@futuresouth.us>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 01:24:43 +0000
In-Reply-To: <2803E274-0AFF-4AA5-B0D0-898457E34081@futuresouth.us>
Cc: Anne Mitchell <amitchell@isipp.com>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Jon,
You're mistaken. This has nothing to do with being or not being an FCC-cont=
rolled medium. It has to do with published statements that may not be true =
-- which are classified as libel, not slander (slander is spoken, libel is =
written). If you post it in a mailing list, or on Facebook, it's legally co=
nsidered published, as long as one other person not party to the matter can=
view it.
You're also mistaken about how the law works. The person making the asserti=
on has the burden of proof. If you say someone is an extortionist, you'd be=
tter be able to prove it. All the plaintiff has to do is say "Your honor, I=
've been libeled, and here are my damages. Please make the defendant compen=
sate me." You will be subpoenaed, and at court the judge will turn to you a=
nd say "Where is the proof of your claims?" If you can't deliver, the judg=
ement will go against you.
The plaintiff doesn't have to prove a thing. In fact, his claim will automa=
tically be accepted and processed by the legal system up until you appear i=
n court. The cost for you before that point could be thousands of dollars. =
If you don't show up for court, you automatically lose.
-mel beckman
-mel beckman
On Aug 16, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Jonathan Hall <jhall@futuresouth.us<mailto:jha=
ll@futuresouth.us>> wrote:
Excuse me for chiming in, here=85 But, if I=92m not mistaken (don=92t worry=
, I=92m not) - this doesn=92t count as =91slander=92 in any way, shape or f=
orm. This mail thread is not any kind of valid FCC controlled or public com=
munications device, as the internet was actually excluded from the public c=
ommunications device list under the Freedom of Speech Act in=85 Was it, 199=
6? Which means, =91slander=92 can=92t be called in this case. You could arg=
ue that it can, but you=92d lose in court in the long run.
If you=92re aiming for the defamation card? That=92s a very difficult one t=
o prove. I=92d counter the argument in a court room by asking the judge to =
prove the plaintiff is NOT an extortionist scum bag. It certainly works bot=
h ways. And either way, defamation requires some form of punitive damage be=
proven in order to actually win that case. Are you saying that the company=
he is referencing has some way to claim and directly correlate a loss of i=
ncome or potential loss of income, either present and/or future, due to the=
comment made on a mail group? I=92d love to see that quantification on pap=
er...
None the less, regardless of what one accuses or says on the internet, the =
usage of the word =91extortion=92 is quite open for interpretation with reg=
ards to context, and making such a statement does not qualify for slander n=
or defamation. He could feel he=92s being extorted, in which case exasperat=
ing his opinion publicly is no less legal than me telling you that I don=92=
t really think you=92re a good lawyer.
Good luck trying to play that card in a courtroom.
Short and simple: One could threaten to sue over it, and one could even try=
. Personally, I=92d turn that court room in to a circus act if someone trie=
d. I=92d most likely get fined in contempt a few times, but at least even t=
he judge will go home laughing. :)
J
On 16 Aug 2016, at 16:45, Anne Mitchell <amitchell@isipp.com<mailto:amitche=
ll@isipp.com>> wrote:
to say "our accounting system does not track invoice details -- it only sho=
ws the total amount due so your numbers mean nothing to us."
All the while they relentlessly levied disconnect threats with short timeli=
nes such as: "if you don't pay us $128,000 by this Friday,
we will shut your operation down."
[...]
At one point their lawyers and accounting people had the nerve to say "our =
accounting system does not track invoice details
Are you talking with your SP's lawyers without your a legal team of
your own present and advising you?
I think one of the first things they should tell you is not to discuss
pending disputes in public. Time to get
a consultation with your own Lawyers to assist with billing dispute
resolution, ASAP.
Not to mention that accusing someone of a crime (extortion), in public (in =
this context I would argue that this is public, especially as the term 'com=
munity' was used in the allegation) is a pretty serious thing.
Anne P. Mitchell,
Attorney at Law
Legislative Consultant
CEO/President,
SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification and Inbox Delivery Assistance
http://www.SuretyMail.com/<http://www.suretymail.com/>
http://www.SuretyMail.eu/<http://www.suretymail.eu/>
Available for consultations by special arrangement.
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Member, California Bar Cyberspace Law Committee
Member, Colorado Cybersecurity Consortium
Member, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Committee
Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
amitchell@isipp.com<mailto:amitchell@isipp.com> | @AnnePMitchell
Facebook/AnnePMitchell | LinkedIn/in/annemitchell
