[arin-discuss] Status of Investigations

[ARIN agrees that discussion to recall Board members, to conduct
investigations of ARIN expenditures, and to stop certain ARIN
expenditures does not violate the ARIN AUP.]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Jay Hennigan wrote:

> Dean Anderson wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> > 
> >> Dean Anderson wrote:
> >>
> >> [Bobbitt...]
> > 
> > ????  What does "Bobbitt" mean?
> 
> To snip off.  Google "Lorena Bobbitt".
> 
> >> Facts?  ITYM allegations in a seven-year-old civil suit perhaps?
> > 
> > A TRO is a fact. A TRO is citable in subsequent litigation.  A previous
> > TRO helps establish that similar facts are sufficient to establish
> > similar claims.
> 
> Your citation wasn't a TRO, but a pleading in support of one.  


You have your facts wrong. I cited two things: First, I cited a TRO in a
case with 7 claims:

"Exactis v.  MAPS, which cited charges of Tortious Interference with
Contract, Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations,
violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Intentional and
Negligent Misrepresentation and Extortion, violation of the Colorado
Communications Privacy Act, violation of the Colorado Organized Crime
Control Act, violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, violation of the
Colorado Antitrust act. A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was
obtained.  Vixie and MAPS attempts to have the case dismissed failed,
and MAPS settled. MAPS no longer blocks Exactis."

Second, I also cited a memoranda in support of the TRO:

"Exactis v. MAPS in the "Motion and Memorandum in Support of
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction" at
http://www.dotcomeon.com/exactis1.html"

> Note also that this is ancient history, and note that the "T" in TRO
> stands for "Temporary".


You are merely repeating a canard with no proof that it is ancient
history or somehow irrelevant. I already cited reasons why it is
relevant.

The TRO is relevant for future civil or criminal court cases because the
statute of limitations hasn't expired, and the TRO remains citable in
other court cases as evidence that a certain set of facts can justify a
certain set of claims. The activities surrounding the suit and
particularly the TRO reflect negatively on the character of Mr. Vixie.


> > I cite the case because the activities brought to light in the case have
> > bearing on the character of the persons involved.
> 
> Could you be more specific?  On second thought, don't.  If you have 
> reason to feel that a board member should be removed, instead of 
> trolling here, follow the procedures in the bylaws.

I am indeed following the bylaws.  An investigation of misconduct needs
to be completed before we can reasonably ask members to vote on removal
for cause; Evidence and cause for removal needs to be discussed with the
membership.  Your demand to "take it off list" is a transparent effort
to prevent the membership from being informed of misconduct and to
prevent the membership from consequently being inclined to vote for the
removal of members of the Board of Directors.

> > It generally wasn't known that Vixie and others were on the Board of
> > directors of a spammer (a commercial bulk emailer) that was
> > competing with Exactis in 2000. It also wasn't generally known in
> > 2000 that MAPS employees were employeed assisting spammers (e.g.
> > Scott Richter, Opt-in-real-big) with list-washing (discovered 2003).
> > The full facts show less "good guy".
> 
> The above sounds like the valueless speculation you dismiss earlier.  
> Evidence?

Board of Directors of Whitehat.com/American Computer Group:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010330222321/www.whitehat.com/board.cfm

"According to a new entry in the Spamhaus Rokso record for Scott 
Richter, three "former spamfighters" had been discover on Richter's 
payroll: former MAPS employees Kelly Molloy (Thompson) and Pete 
Popovich, as well as Ohio anti-spammer Karen Hoffmann. The Rokso entry 
ROK2888, stated that the three were employed by Richter to handle 
network abuse complaints and to perform "listwashing"---the task of 
removing angry spam recipients from OptInRealBig.com's mailing lists.
  [...] which represented 'a depressing reversal of ethics'
"Spam Kings" pg 254, by Brian McWilliams, Orielly (2003)


> > Are you asserting Exactis' attorney committed some violation of
> > professional conduct? 
> 
> Not at all, merely that he was employed specifically to argue against 
> MAPS and Vixie, and not an impartial observer.

Good. Then we can agree that the statements in the pleadings and
memoranda I cited are true.


		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000