<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 1:14 PM William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 12:59 PM Matthew Petach <<a href="mailto:mpetach@yahoo.com" target="_blank">mpetach@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 12:47, William Herrin<br>
> <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us" target="_blank">bill@herrin.us</a>> wrote:<br>
> You understand that's not how jurisprudence generally works, right?<br>
> Court cases and filings are almost always open to the public.<br>
><br>
> But we don't proceed to bring cases to court until enough evidence has been gathered to satisfy a reasonable cause for doing so, and we have penalties for lawyers who attempt to bring frivolous cases to court.<br>
<br>
What have you got to hide? ;)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Ha!</div><div><br></div><div>I'm sure we've all learned from Eric Schmidt's faux pas with respect to that notion. ^_^;</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Seriously though, we file civil cases on reasonable, good faith belief<br>
and make arrests on probable cause, all of it publicly reported. There<br>
is a bar but it's not a high bar nor should it be. And we don't<br>
generally penalize lawyers unless they act in actual bad faith.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>But the bar for probable cause is considerably higher than </div><div>"But Ronald couldn't find proof they were following the law"</div><div><br></div><div>Note that if there's actual indications of wrongdoing, we already </div><div>have a means to file a complaint with ARIN, as John has repeatedly </div><div>pointed out.</div><div><br></div><div>What Ronald is doing is accusing ARIN of *not* going after people </div><div>he suspects aren't following the law, without submitting any actual </div><div>evidence to support the accusation. </div><div><br></div><div>This is McCarthyism resurrected.</div><div><br></div><div>" <span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:open-sans,sans-serif;font-size:18px;letter-spacing:0.8px">“I have here in my hand a list of 205 [State Department employees] that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.”</span></div><div><br></div><div>We should not stoop to witch hunt allegations without any supporting </div><div>evidence being offered. Ronald indicated he couldn't find evidence of </div><div>fraud, and thus wasn't willing to file a fraud report. He simply said he </div><div>couldn't find evidence that the accused networks and individuals *weren't*</div><div>committing fraud, and that it was up to ARIN to demonstrate they weren't </div><div>complicit in covering up for the entity. In essence, he's demanding that </div><div>ARIN show the world how they go about determining that every company </div><div>that has ever applied for number resources is *not guilty* of fraud. </div><div><br></div><div>We should *never* put the burden of proving innocence on the victim. </div><div><br></div><div>The burden of proof of guilt should be on the accuser's side to produce. </div><div><br></div><div>When accusations of fraud are submitted, yes, it's worthy and reasonable </div><div>for ARIN to report on the outcome.</div><div><br></div><div>But for Ronald to demand that ARIN reveal the details of how ARIN went </div><div>about deciding that every company that ever applied for number resources </div><div>was *NOT* breaking the law is a witch hunt. It is a demand to produce proof </div><div>of innocence rather than acting on accusation of guilt with evidence to back </div><div>up the assertion.</div><div><br></div><div>Just as it is not the job of the police to check on what each and every one of </div><div>us is doing in our households to make sure we're innocent of all crime, it is not </div><div>ARIN's job to ensure every company that ever applied for number resources </div><div>is completely innocent of all crime. If there is an accusation of fraud, they should </div><div>act on it and investigate it thoroughly. But absent that, if no evidence of fraudulent </div><div>behaviour is reported, it should not be incumbent on ARIN staff to justify why they </div><div>have not taken action against every company that ever submitted a request to </div><div>them.</div><div><br></div><div>I for one do not wish to turn the ARIN region into that level of totalitarian regime.</div><div><br></div><div>When Ronald finds evidence of fraud, he should report it, and ARIN should </div><div>investigate it, and report accordingly if fraud is found. </div><div><br></div><div>But to fire broad-based accusations against the ARIN membership and against </div><div>ARIN staff without proof is a bridge too far:</div><div><br></div><div>" *) How many more memberships are currently sitting on ARIN's books that,</div> as in this case, obviously should never have been there, and what<br> effort, if any, will ARIN now expend to find them and to terminate<br> the memberships involved?"<div><br></div><div>If it's obvious (ie, there is proof of fraud), then why is Ronald unwilling to </div><div>file a complaint against the networks in question?</div><div><br></div><div>He himself admits he can find no evidence of fraud:</div><div><br></div><div>"I cannot, in all honesty and good conscience, report something as</div> "fraud" where the set of pertinent facts, as I have elaborated them,<br> *do not* suggest that there has been any fraud, deceit, or<br> misrepresentation of any kind, at least not on the part of the member<br> organization in question."<div><br></div><div>So, he cannot accuse the specific network in question of committing </div><div>fraud, for there is proof.</div><div><br></div><div>But he is willing to accuse ARIN staff of not finding the very proof he </div><div>himself has been unable to find.</div><div><br></div><div>If there is clear evidence of fraud that ARIN is overlooking, and that </div><div>evidence can be produced, I might have some sympathy for what Ronald </div><div>is demanding. </div><div><br></div><div>But to simply claim that ARIN staff are incompentent at finding evidence </div><div>of fraud when Ronald himself cannot find such evidence is unconscionable,</div><div>and I would hope Ronald would have the decency to either produce evidence </div><div>to support his claim, or retract it with an apology. </div><div><br></div><div>It is every bit as unreasonable a demand as if I were to demand that Ronald </div><div>produce *proof* he has stopped beating his wife, to use the age-old example. :(</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks!</div><div><br></div><div>Matt</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Regards,<br>
Bill Herrin<br>
<br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
</blockquote></div></div>