Senator Wyden Demands Answers About Feds' Seizure Of Dajaz1

from the you-thought-it-was-going-away? dept

If the feds thought that they could seize the Dajaz1.com blog, hold it for a year in secret, then return it and pretend nothing really happened... it appears they may be in for a bit of a surprise. Senator Ron Wyden has begun his investigation into the matter, sending detailed requests for information from Attorney General Eric Holder, ICE director John Morton and White House IP Czar Victoria Espinel. You can see the three letters embedded below. There are a lot of questions to each of them, with a big focus on who they were talking to about the seizures (e.g., the RIAA) and what they were saying. They also ask questions about the legal basis for the seizures and even the training and procedures involved. I'll certainly be interested to see the replies when they come in...


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 3:30pm

    Duh...Dajaz1 was a pirate site, it was rogue, it was illegal...who cares that there was never a proper trial! What the RIAA said is the gospel Truth, with a capital T, and if you say otherwise, you're a dirty pirate heretic who must be stoned to death.
    /sarcmarc

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Brad C (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 3:31pm

    I'm sure the replies will just be 400 pages of [Redacted]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 3:38pm

    Re:

    No, it will be [REDACTED] of [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED] for [REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED] of [REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED][REDACTED] RIAA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Kevin H (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 4:11pm

    Given the administrations previous actions

    Request: DENIED
    Reason Stated: National Security
    Prepared By: [REDACTED]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 4:11pm

    While I can certainly appreciate Wyden's efforts, it's all wasted time. Do you actually thin that ICE/DOJ would ever be held responsible for their actions? It would set a serious precedent for everything they ever did that was questionable. That can't happen. Ever.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    el_segfaulto (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 4:12pm

    Re:

    Pfft, just label it "Classified" and declare any Freedom of Information requests to be null and void. After all, in order to fight the global scourge of piracy and terrorism we have to be able to keep secrets from our enemies. It's all for America, you don't want America to lose...do you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    drewmerc (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 4:13pm

    ███████████ Dajaz1 ████ ███████ ███████████ ███████████ ████████ ███ ███████████ ███████████ ███████████ ███████████ ███████████ ██ █████████ ███████████ Dajaz1███████████ ███████████ ████████ ███

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Robert Shaver, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 4:15pm

    You realize ...

    that he won't get any real answers back, right? Just more vague "trust me, they're bad" statements. And we (I) let them get away with that behavior.

    Look at how the previous administration "outed" Valerie Plame and nobody was brought to justice. Oh, Scooter got a slap on the wrist for stonewalling the court, but the perpetrators were never even exposed.

    We are a sick, sick country on a downward spiral as a world power, and it's our own fault ... the people's fault ... me too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 4:16pm

    Not just the response.

    Reality is the thing that's been redacted here, from the minds of all those lovely PIPA/SOPA supporters. And that's the problem

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 4:18pm

    Re: Re:

    Surely there must be a study out there that links piracy to terrorism.

    On a more serious note, I hope Congress really starts questioning DHS and ICE over this, so they put a stop on their ILLEGAL seizures. ICE might act as if SOPA has already passed, but it hasn't. And since their seizures were completely illegal, they must pay for it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 4:21pm

    Re: Re:

    Any Freedom of Information requests on this matter should be deemed as "support of terrorists" and those responsible should be locked up in some third world country to rot until they die and rot some more...right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 4:23pm

    Re: You realize ...

    And yet, Bradley Manning is punished for giving low lev...el cables to wikileaks... The hypocrisy [of the government] is astounding.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 4:30pm

    Re:

    Except that Congress writes the checks, in addition to the laws. If Wyden gets pissed enough, he has the authority and political capital to make life very difficult for ICE.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Kevin H (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 4:30pm

    Re:

    you win.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 4:34pm

    Re:

    The Feds could save a lot of time if they just dumped blindness-inducing chemicals into our country's drinking water supply.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 4:53pm

    The problem with John Morton is that he "thinks outside the box."

    "John is an imaginative leader who thinks outside the box about new ways to address a complex enforcement problem," said Recording Industry Association of America CEO Cary Sherman. "He's not afraid to rock the boat to get results. I'm a big fan."

    "Imaginative." I assume that refers to his ability to see lawlessness where none actually exists.

    "Thinks outside the box." Always the sort of statement one loves to see rehashed on every single tepid resume ever.

    Let's hear what another leader in the "creative" industry has to say:

    "John is one of the best. He really gets it he's about change," said Mike Robinson, the executive vice president of worldwide content protection for the Motion Picture Association of America. "He thinks outside the box and he's very sincere."

    "He's about change." Sure is. Things obviously can't stay the way they are, not if DVD dollars are being exchanged for streams of nickels and dimes. An "executive vice president of worldwide content protection" can't be expected to live off whatever's left over in petty cash after the studios crank out $100M movie after $100M movie.

    "Thinks outside the box." Yep. I'm assuming he also reads off his coworkers' papers much like Cary and Mike seem to.

    "Very sincere." There's nothing more sincere than taking away a website for a year and then suddenly giving it back with no explanation. It's that kind of sincerity that makes this country great. When we steamroll your rights, we mean it, maaaaaan.

    The issue here is probably John Morton's office. Not his "office" as in "title," but his actual physical office, with its four walls and a door, which greatly resembles a box (albeit a well-appointed box), in which he is unable to do any thinking.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 5:03pm

    Besides telling the good Senator to MYOB, it would be nice to see them respond in kind by asking who is spoon-feeding him these letters, as well as all copies of communications with him/her/them.

    Just a hunch, but it seems quite likely that a former member of his staff is the go-to guy, particularly in view of where that staffer landed a job.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 5:12pm

    Re:

    nah, when i select the text i should be able to read it. hasn't the british MoD taught you anything?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Big Al, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 5:14pm

    Re: Re:

    But...But...How would the MPAA make money if everyone is blinded?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    puttheminjail, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 5:29pm

    Lying bastards

    I'd like to see Espinel, Holden and Morton charged with treason for violating the constitution. Not only are they bought by the RIAA/MPAA, they have violated numerous laws and lied to Congress.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 6:00pm

    Re: Re:

    Shame on you, Congress doesn't need any competition.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 6:01pm

    Re:

    Regarding his think-proof office, I have a cat that habitually poops outside the box. His feet are in the box, but his, er, "exit port" is not.

    Based on his words and actions, I suspect Morton has infringed upon my cat's technique.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 6:11pm

    Re: Re:

    Are you a fool!! Any mention of RIAA or the MPAA will be redacted by a RIAA or MPAA (oops sorry DOJ) staffer. ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 6:14pm

    I wonder is Wyden will adopt my district...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 6:15pm

    if. damnit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 6:15pm

    Re:

    How did you do that ...█████&#9608

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 6:16pm

    Re: Re:

    okay that is cool !!! thanks for the lesson

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 6:16pm

    I think it's about time these politicos and media execs (with very few exceptions) met with the business end of a 12-gauge shotgun. I think they'd change their tune real fast at that point.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 6:35pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yes, please use it on all your posts from here on forward.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 6:40pm

    Jehova, Jehova, Jehova

    there, I said it, deal with it...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 6:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What, the ██████ button? Sure, why not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 6:50pm

    Re: Re:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 6:54pm

    Re: Re:

    LoL™

    ™

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    Violated (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 6:55pm

    Injustice

    I well recall that this is not the first domain seizure related letter that Senator Ron Wyden has sent out. His previous one was about RojaDirecta, general foreign policy and ICE's objectives including how they met those objectives.

    We should also recall in the reply he received that all questions related to RojaDirecta had been completely ignored and most of the the other questions were simply answered with "we do not provide comments on active cases".

    I would say good luck to him this time but as seen most people lack faith in ICE airing their dirty laundry without even coming close to just punishment.

    This is not to say that we don't want important answers to important questions. The supreme errors made by the RIAA, how the DHS's latest college graduate employee was manipulated, and of course how they can seize this domain a whole year using ultra secret extension orders while denying due process through denying their lawyer a date before a judge to plead his client's case.

    This is not open and accountable Government but a dictatorship and any Senator who believes in democracy and accountability should condemn these practices by ICE and the Injustice Department.

    Well good luck to him this time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 6:57pm

    Re: Re:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 6:59pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You can even use charmap (start > run > charmap) and click on advanced view.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Larry, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 7:49pm

    Re: Re: You realize ...

    Wow. Really? Low level? Citation required!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 8:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: You realize ...

    If they were 'high' level, then there might have been some consequences. You know, like out there in the real world? Just what actual consequences took place? Any reports of intelligence assets being compromised? Any reports of nations falling?

    Oh, there were consequences where some government officials were embarrassed. But, can you (with a straight face) say that embarrassing government personnel is 'high' level?

    Oh, and there are also consequences for the persons that let us know about the many ridiculous activities of governments. Is that 'high' level?

    I call the release 'holding accountable', not treason.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Larry, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 8:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: You realize ...

    So, a 19 yo kid releases secret documents and then you expect to hear of the also secret consequences? Didn't you read that Hezbollah just "broke up" a "CIA" ring? Didn't you see that several countries have done the same and that more that a few diplomats have been fired from this?

    And the "intertube" defense is that he's a "whistleblower"???

    Wow, you need to go sign up and do a tour. Get read in and understand the UCMJ.

    THEN, you can come back here and make your lame ass statements.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    anon, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 8:39pm

    Re:

    sorry you closed minded retard if it was a "pirate/rouge" site it would not have been returned. Think before you type and have a great day.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Larry, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 8:50pm

    Re: Lying bastards

    Excellent! I wonder if those idiots understand what treason is...They took an oath of office and swore to defend said constitution. I think that they don't understand and that soon, the mob will remind them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 9:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I sense fear that some people listen to me ... scary that. Consistent truth and forewarning with a side of being a total dick thrown in.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 10:01pm

    Re: Injustice

    Wyden seems to be all noise and not much else, I hear plenty of huff and puff, but not much in the way of results. He seems mostly good at getting press releases out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 10:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    LOL... that black spot is way to long to be a button that says F##k its is six characters.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 10:46pm

    Re: Re: Injustice

    He's real good at collecting $ from the tech industry...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 10:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Scary freetards. Interesting concept. Maybe there's a zombie movie plot in there somewhere.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 11:51pm

    Re: Re:

    looks like you completely missed the sarcmarc I posted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 12:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You realize ...

    Didn't you read that Hezbollah just "broke up" a "CIA" ring?

    That had nothing to do with the Wikileaks issues. The CIA got sloppy in being tracked. Hezbollah

    And the "intertube" defense is that he's a "whistleblower"???

    He was. He opened the Collateral Murder video for open discussion in the world. The government's response in punishing him for 19 months is enough. He was punished far more than any other whistleblower out there. Even Daniel Ellsberg received less jail time for an arraignment, and he blew the whistle on higher level documents

    No, the fact is Manning's documents helped to overthrow Tunisia's government, and begin the Arab Springs movement. Because of those cables, we now know the issues with the MPAA and Sweden, Australia, and the UK in trying to enforce more copyright law.

    Citation required

    Link

    They reveal how the US deals with both its allies and its enemies negotiating, pressuring and sometimes brusquely denigrating foreign leaders, all behind the firewalls of ciphers and secrecy classifications that diplomats assume to be secure. The leaked cables range up to the "SECRET NOFORN" level, which means they are meant never to be shown to non-US citizens.

    As the wikileaks story continued, a lot of people began to realize that some of these stories should not have been a secret anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    peter, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 2:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You realize ...

    Which of the documents was 'Secret'? I mean really Secret and not just sensitive, under the general banner of restricted circulation, or worst of all, embarrassing? Any pointers gratefully received.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 3:56am

    Re:

    Besides telling the good Senator to MYOB

    You really think that a Senator should mind his own business when he comes across evidence of massive censorship and an ensuing coverup by the federal government?

    What a world you live in.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    Violated (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 4:02am

    Re: Injustice

    Senator Wyden would also know that disliking someone or their actions is not enough to take them out. If they are doing bad things then just wait until they have dug their own grave where you then only need to give the final push.

    We can hope all these documents are condemning but they are unlikely to sign their death warrant. We can at minimum hope to better understand and criticise the operation of ICE and the DOJ.

    Then it is on to waiting for their next glorious failure which seems quite likely due to their large lack of understanding on what they are about to seize.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 4:58am

    Re: Re:

    Your cat is infringing on my cat! She's going to sue!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 5:20am

    Hope Senator Wyden can actually get some answers to publish to us people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Machin Shin, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 5:22am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Well that law is still being fine tuned. Give them a few more months to shove it the rest of the way through the system. Then start keeping an eye out for the MPs come to carry off the "terrorists", AKA anyone who says something those in power don't like.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 5:25am

    Re: Re:

    How about a venn diagram of his staff and the tech industry?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 5:39am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Why not? It should be easy with all those opensource Venn makers putting you out of business!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    The Devil's Coachman (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 6:31am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Then movie attendance will be compulsory, or you will go to jail.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    The Devil's Coachman (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 6:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You realize ...

    ..............crickets...........

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    The Devil's Coachman (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 6:38am

    Re:

    "Thinks outside the box" translates to "tries to find ways to thwart the Constitution", or maybe "finds creative ways to break the law, hoping not to be caught".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    The Devil's Coachman (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 6:41am

    Re:

    He won't. And I doubt he cares. Grandstanding is all that's going on here. The responses will all be unmitigated horseshit, and nothing will change. Anyone here who thinks any elected representative cares about anything more than getting re-elected makes Pollyanna look like a hard core cynic.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    The Devil's Coachman (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 6:43am

    Re:

    Perhaps you should MYOB and stop making baseless assertions. Troll fail.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    icon
    The Devil's Coachman (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 6:45am

    Re: Injustice

    It would take much, much more than luck. More like a nation-transforming miracle. Not gonna happen. More proof there is no god. This is just one minor example of our dysfunctional, bought and paid for government, while the really major and egregious ones are allowed to continue unhindered and unremarked.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 7:44am

    Re: Re:

    Massive censorship? Ensuing coverup?

    Dajaz1 comes to mind as the poster child for your comment. What greatly troubles me about it, however, is that its counsel could have very easily forced the USG to defend the seizure in an adversarial hearing before the court had it simply followed longstanding rules within the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

    The world I live in is one where I deal intimately with our rules of law, and have every reason to believe that the "wounds" suffered by Dajaz1 were almost certainly self-invlicted.

    As for Mr. Wyden, it could not be more clear that an unnamed third party (I believe I know who that party is) is trying to use his office as an end-around to both FOIA and civil discovery. There are means at hand under law to require timely responses to FOIA requests and USG reliance on questionable uses of FOIA exemptions. I have used them successfully in the past, so I have a difficult time understanding why counsel does not appear to have used any of them.

    Finally, I do understand the concerns articulated with reference to the First Amendment, but to date there has been a distinct absence of specificity by those who have chosen to raise the issue. Yes, there is a high bar to clear in many, if not most, matters associated with the First Amendment, but theoretical possibilities are never a good substitute for the identification of specific facts supporting allegations that the First Amendment has been or is being violated. On this score the supporting data is remarkably thin.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 7:47am

    Re: Re:

    Perhaps I have insight and experience in matters such as this that provide my with perspective that is unkown to the public in general.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 9:05am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Perhaps you should learn to spell first.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 9:23am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Dajaz1 comes to mind as the poster child for your comment. What greatly troubles me about it, however, is that its counsel could have very easily forced the USG to defend the seizure in an adversarial hearing before the court had it simply followed longstanding rules within the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

    It is incredibly difficult to raise a case against a secret court and secret documents when one must reference these documents to raise a case. Secret courts such as this are an affront to the people, and to justice, and should NEVER occur.

    As for Mr. Wyden, it could not be more clear that an unnamed third party (I believe I know who that party is) is trying to use his office as an end-around to both FOIA and civil discovery. There are means at hand under law to require timely responses to FOIA requests and USG reliance on questionable uses of FOIA exemptions. I have used them successfully in the past, so I have a difficult time understanding why counsel does not appear to have used any of them.

    There is little respect to be given to a process that has been subverted in such a manner that those who actually represent the people of this country cannot delve into the possible malpractices and malfeasences of those who work for use. When the government subverts the law to hide their shady dealings, that government must be brought into the light and made to answer for their crimes.

    Finally, I do understand the concerns articulated with reference to the First Amendment, but to date there has been a distinct absence of specificity by those who have chosen to raise the issue. Yes, there is a high bar to clear in many, if not most, matters associated with the First Amendment, but theoretical possibilities are never a good substitute for the identification of specific facts supporting allegations that the First Amendment has been or is being violated. On this score the supporting data is remarkably thin.

    How specific must one get? The blocking of ALL speech on a published site, and I do believe that blogs are published and should be treated with the same respect of all physical writings, under the unproven pretense that some of the speech might possibly be illegal, I do not think you need to be more specific.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 10:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I can spell. Typing is another matter altogether.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 10:19am

    There is no secret court in matters such as this, and whoever is feeding you such information is plainly wrong. Think about it. If there was a secret court, and if papers were under seal, then how is it that an affidavit in support of the government's motion for a seizure order crqwled out from under "seal". The answer lies in the fact that the type of court you seem to believe exists does not.

    Pray tell what crimes have been committed by the USG. It went to a public, non-secret court, requested a court order based upon evidence in hand, the court determined that probable cause existed, and an order was issued by the court.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 10:32am

    Re: Re: Re:

    How about a venn diagram of his staff and the tech industry?

    Just for fun, I thought I'd take you up on your challenge.

    The only list I could find of Wyden's former staff is from the HillWho site.

    I went to every single person's LinkedIn page that I could find. Not one currently holds a job in the "tech industry."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 10:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Injustice

    He's real good at collecting $ from the tech industry...

    Here's something odd. According to the Sunlight Foundation, Patrick Leahy, the sponsor of the PROTECT IP bill, got about $100,000 more from the "Computers/Internet" industry than Ron Wyden did. In fact, that industry isn't even in Wyden's Top 5 industries; but it's #3 on Leahy's list.

    Of course, Leahy also got $371,000 from the "TV/Movies/Music" industry, making that his #2 industry, right behind law firms. So, there's that.

    Also, the only tech company in Wyden's Top 20 contributors is Intel, who gave him $24,000. I'm at a loss to guess why Intel would have anything to do with Wyden's questioning of ICE.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 11:23am

    Re: Re: Re:

    What greatly troubles me about it, however, is that its counsel could have very easily forced the USG to defend the seizure in an adversarial hearing before the court had it simply followed longstanding rules within the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

    No, they couldn't, and they were trying to. ICE simply ignored their lawyer's requests, denied them the right to view any of the relevant documents, and filed extensions to the forfeiture deadlines - under seal. Simply put, ICE was not even vaguely following the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

    Techdirt already ran a story on it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 11:30am

    Re:

    And everything since that gavel hit the table has been under seal. Even Dajaz1's lawyer could not read the court documents afterwards, thus exists a secret court. If you cannot see this, then you are being willfully blind. Removing a defendant's right to face the accuser and accusations is a pretty big deal to me, and it should be to you as well if you are, as you infer, tied to the courts in any way.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 12:10pm

    Re: Re:

    Are you that stupid anon? You can't figure out that was sarcasm even with /sarcmarc? wow....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 12:12pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Piracy killed my dog.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 1:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It is suggested in the post you linked that they "couldn't", when almost certainly the answer is that for reasons known only to them they "didn't".

    If anyone was not following and taking advantage of the FRCP it was the site's counsel.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 1:15pm

    Re: Re:

    And how do you happen to know that all of what you say is the gospel truth? I think it far more likely that someone is pulling your chain.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 3:19pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'll believe them before I believe you, that much is for true. You're just speculating and calling them outright liars. They were actually there. Make of that what you will, but you have zero credibility.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 4:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Who is "them" in which you seem to place great faith?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 6:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You know what, I'm going to give you a challenge. You say that the lawyer and Dajaz1 are lying, and set great faith in the system that you seem to idolize so very much. You link to us the court documents that Dajaz's lawyer says are under seal and prove him a liar, or you step back from your own baseless speculations. Not that I think you'll do either of them, but if what you say is true, then obviously the documents are available to be read by the public, right? If not, would the seal at least state who is allowed to see the documents? Because it's painfully obvious that if the defendant isn't allowed, then you're as full of shit as I think you are.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 9:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    In case you missed it below, I'm asking you to prove that statement. Show us the docs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 9:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    when almost certainly the answer is that for reasons known only to them they "didn't".

    This is simply false. Dajaz1 isn't the only one given the runaround, either.

    So, unless you can get a single shred of evidence that they could contest the seizures but didn't, I'd say that you need to do your research.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 2:15am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Dajaz1 comes to mind as the poster child for your comment. What greatly troubles me about it, however, is that its counsel could have very easily forced the USG to defend the seizure in an adversarial hearing before the court had it simply followed longstanding rules within the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

    You have brought this up at least 3 times in the past few weeks. And I have explained each time why that did not make sense.

    And yet you keep bringing it up as if I had not responded to you on it.

    It makes me wonder why you seem to not be able to comprehend simple English sentences.

    The world I live in is one where I deal intimately with our rules of law, and have every reason to believe that the "wounds" suffered by Dajaz1 were almost certainly self-invlicted.

    Really? That must be quite a fantasy world you live in when it's "self-inflicted" for a site to be censored with no legal recourse for over a year and then the gov't just hands the domain back.

    Finally, I do understand the concerns articulated with reference to the First Amendment, but to date there has been a distinct absence of specificity by those who have chosen to raise the issue. Yes, there is a high bar to clear in many, if not most, matters associated with the First Amendment, but theoretical possibilities are never a good substitute for the identification of specific facts supporting allegations that the First Amendment has been or is being violated. On this score the supporting data is remarkably thin.

    We're not talking "theoretical possibilities." We're talking about an entire website full of protected speech seized by the gov't, who then denied them any and all due process by supposedly filing secret extensions via a secret docket and refusing to show that to the counsel of the site.

    This isn't theoretical at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 2:19am

    Re:

    There is no secret court in matters such as this, and whoever is feeding you such information is plainly wrong. Think about it. If there was a secret court, and if papers were under seal, then how is it that an affidavit in support of the government's motion for a seizure order crqwled out from under "seal". The answer lies in the fact that the type of court you seem to believe exists does not.

    Pray tell what crimes have been committed by the USG. It went to a public, non-secret court, requested a court order based upon evidence in hand, the court determined that probable cause existed, and an order was issued by the court.


    No one's talking about the initial affidavit.

    Look the following facts are incontestable:

    * Under the process, once the domain is seized, the government has 60 days to notify the site owner.
    * The site owner has 35 days to request its return
    * The government then has 90 days to begin forfeiture *or* return the seized property.

    Thus, within 185 days, the government either needs to return the property or start forfeiture. It did neither.

    * The site was returned more than 370 days after it was seized.

    You seem to be ignoring this entirely for reasons unknown. If there was no "secret docket" then please explain the extra ~200 days.

    Thanks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 3:23am

    Re: Re:

    Here's something that I don't think has been reported. On November 14th ICE's seizure banner was removed from dajaz1.com and onsmash.com because both were pointed to 127.0.0.1. It seems likely that they kept dajaz1.com for an extra three weeks more than necessary even after a decision was made to return it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    icon
    The Devil's Coachman (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 6:02am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Perhaps you are completely full of shit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 7:53am

    Re: Re:

    Persons asserting an ownership interest in seized property are provided a timetable under the FRCP within which to make an appearance before the court and file with the court a motion for its return (a "request" if you will). From what was stated in your articles it is easily surmised that counsel for the site did not make such an appearance. Otherwise, the issue would have been engaged before the court and an adversarial proceeding commenced, at which time the USG would have been required to put up or shut up.

    Why counsel did not appear before the court is not at all readily apparent. Exchanges of communication before a lawsuit is commenced is commonplace. Continuing to rely on such a means of garnering information after filing and without making an appearance before the court is most certainly not commonplace.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 8:56am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Persons asserting an ownership interest in seized property are provided a timetable

    If you are talking about the notice as required by 18 USC 983(a)(1), nobody from the government ever sent any such notice. The seizures were done ex parte, and no such notice was provided, either before the seizures, or at any time afterwards.

    From Mike's description, I'm guessing they used 18 USC 983(a)(1)(C) to keep extending the deadline for initiating the forfeiture proceedings. And until they did, apparently they thought they didn't have to send any kind of notice whatsoever to the site owners or operators.

    And, furthermore, all of the documents extending the deadline - and all other documents - were kept under seal, and could not be released even in redacted form.

    At least, that seems to be what the government is claiming. Not that anyone can tell - since no notice or paperwork was ever provided to Dajaz1's lawyer at any time. For all anyone knows, after the initial warrant, it's entirely possible that no judge anywhere in the country even set eyes on the case at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 9:43am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Persons asserting an ownership interest in seized property are provided a timetable under the FRCP within which to make an appearance before the court and file with the court a motion for its return (a "request" if you will). From what was stated in your articles it is easily surmised that counsel for the site did not make such an appearance. Otherwise, the issue would have been engaged before the court and an adversarial proceeding commenced, at which time the USG would have been required to put up or shut up.

    You keep saying that and I've explained to you 3 times what they did and why they followed the proper procedure.

    Why counsel did not appear before the court is not at all readily apparent. Exchanges of communication before a lawsuit is commenced is commonplace. Continuing to rely on such a means of garnering information after filing and without making an appearance before the court is most certainly not commonplace.

    You really want to stick your fingers in your ears, and cover your eyes, and pretend that we didn't answer this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 11:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This was a lawsuit, and proper procedure under a lawsuit is to present oneself before the court and join the case as a putative owner of the seized property.

    I can think of a few reasons why counsel may have chosen not to do so, but to suggest he was cut out of the process entirely is simply not right when it comes to a lawsuit pending before a federal district court. He could have filed an appearance at any time following the seizure and thereby forced the government's hand.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 11:16am

    Re: Re:

    "The site owner has 35 days to request its return..."

    The way one makes such a request in a pending lawsuit is to make an appearance before the court and file a motion for return of the property. Just like the court issued the order for seizure, it could have, after listening to both sides at a motion hearing, rescinded its prior order and issued a new one requiring that the property be returned.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 12:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Injustice

    Wyden's top donors were also law firms.

    Who are the clients of those firms?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 1:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This was a lawsuit,

    This was not a lawsuit. No lawsuit was ever pending before any court. This was a seizure in a criminal case. The legal process regarding seizures is very different from the process regarding lawsuits.

    They are also different from the regulations regarding forfeiture proceedings - which never happened, because the government kept filing motions, under seal, unavailable to Dajaz1's lawyer in any form whatsoever, delaying the initiation of forfeiture proceedings.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 1:40pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You go right ahead and kep trying to rewrite history. You've got nothing to support your assumptions except how it is 'supposed' to work. As we've already seen over the last 235 years of this country's history laws are commonly twisted and distorted to suit the government's agenda. Until you can prove with evidence that your version is the correct one, I'll take defending counsel's version.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 2:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah, well... Mr DJ got his domain back, and he is still turning out remixes seemingly without permission - and oh yeah, now he hides them behind a password making it even harder for rights owners to check.

    His middle finger is clearly in the air, seems like another pirate got away.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 6:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This was a seizure under civil law, and is governed by 18 USC 981. The motion I reference is provided at 18 USC 981(b)(3).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 8:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah, well... Mr DJ got his domain back, and he is still turning out remixes seemingly without permission - and oh yeah, now he hides them behind a password making it even harder for rights owners to check.

    What? This is just flat out lying on your part. He got the domain back, but has yet to relaunch the site in any way shape or form other than the splash page they have up. To claim he's "turning out remixes" is just an outright fabrication on your part.

    His middle finger is clearly in the air, seems like another pirate got away.


    Do you have *anything* to backup your flat out lie? Of course not. Dajaz1 has not published anything new and has not even relaunched the site yet. Try again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 8:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I can think of a few reasons why counsel may have chosen not to do so, but to suggest he was cut out of the process entirely is simply not right when it comes to a lawsuit pending before a federal district court. He could have filed an appearance at any time following the seizure and thereby forced the government's hand.

    The process was clear. You can request the property back and the government has 90 days to give it back. It failed to do so.

    As for trying to speed up matters by filing in court, how many times do I need to tell you: the US gov't warned him not to do that, or it would file all sorts of questionable *criminal* charges against his client as a form of retribution.

    Any lawyer with any sense of reason wants to stay out of having his clients charged with bogus criminal charges.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 10:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    My point was simply that the process for securing the return of seized property is via a motion filed, in this case, with the court that issued the seizure order.

    I do not recall the original quotes attributed to Mr. Bridges mentioning anything about threats, so I am not aware of where this additional information arose. If it arose from quotes attributed to Mr. Bridges and presented elsewhere, then I am highly skeptical as to their veracity. US Attorneys are not dumb, and it would be the height of dumb to make any such suggestion to opposing counsel, not to mention illegal and grounds for almost certain disciplinary action by the bar. It would also be the height of dumb for any attorney to make such statements in public concerning any US Attorney, and I have no reason to believe that Mr. Bridges is prone to make statements of such a nature. Now THAT would most certainly come back to haunt both the attorney foolish enough to make them and the client foolish enough to have such an attorney on retainer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Dec 25th, 2011 @ 2:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This was a seizure under civil law, and is governed by 18 USC 981.

    To be clear: it was a civil seizure, as opposed to a criminal seizure (which applies only to seizing goods after a conviction), but it was a civil seizure in a criminal investigation.

    And 18 USC 981 does not apply to copyright seizures. If you look at the statutes enumerated in 981(a)(1), they refer to things like bank fraud, money laundering, motor vehicle theft, or terrorism. Copyright infringement isn't mentioned.

    As far as I can tell, the proper statute is 18 USC 983. The government failed to provide notice, likely using 983(a)(1)(A)(ii) as justification, then extended the time they had to initiate forfeiture proceedings, likely using 983(a)(1)(C) to justify that. Then put all of those extensions under seal.

    I say "likely," since nobody ever saw any paperwork, and to this day, there's no evidence that it even existed. No court docket, no placeholders in PACER, nothing.

    No notice was sent to the site or its legal team, either before the seizure, nor at any time afterwards. And they couldn't fight it in court until the government initiated the actual forfeiture proceedings - which they never did. The end result? They were totally shut out of the process.

    As far as Mike's theory that the federal government threatened a criminal investigation if the sites contested the seizures: this kind of thing happens all the time, and not just with copyright infringement cases. For example, it's exactly what the government did in the Rojadirecta case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Dec 25th, 2011 @ 2:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    As far as I can tell, the proper statute is 18 USC 983.

    Incidentally, I got to there through the reference to "chapter 46" in 18 USC 2323(a)(2). Whether 983 is the proper statute or not, the government is apparently also proceeding according to Rule G of the FRCP. (Interesting, then, that they totally disregarded G(4)(B).)

    G(5) is the relevant statute in this case. Under G(5)(a)(1)(D), claims must "be served on the government attorney" (not the court). This is what Dajaz1's lawyer did; and the government attorney simply ignored the claims altogether.

    (Sorry, I couldn't include links directly to the paragraphs - the Cornell page doesn't have bookmarks.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 25th, 2011 @ 11:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It does get quite confusing, but then again statutes are many times hardly the model of clarity.

    You correctly note that 18 USC 2323(a)(2) pertains, but it should be noted that 18 USC 2323(b) also pertains as it is the tie-back to 18 USC 891. Of course, it would have been much easier if 891 simply referenced 2323 directly.

    The FRCP rule you recite pertains specifically to a forfeiture action, but, by my reading, not to a seizure itself. It, again by my reading, essentially defines how a forfeiture proceeding is to be conducted.

    Now, where things get a bit dicey is that though the site is registered in the US, the characteristic common to all of the domains that were seized, it is not at all clear who actually owns/runs the site and where he/she/they reside.
    In the US? Outside the US? If within the US, it does seem to me that in personam jurisdiction could have been secured against those who own/run the site. One problem I have always had with domain name registries it that it is many times impossible to determine the name and residence location of the person actually registering the site. If such information was available it would greatly simplify the process for determining the proper avenues to employ in proceeding against the site and/or owner/operator.

    In summary, it is my understanding that 981 applies because of 2323, a motion to the court for the return of seized property is an intergral part of 981, and that Rule G does not come into play at the seizure stage. Whew, I almost feel as if I am working a calculus problem whenever I am trying to link disparate statutory provisions into a coherent scheme capable of being understood, and I have been doing this for almost 33 years! Anyone who practices law who states this is not a difficult task is either lying or is clueless.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 25th, 2011 @ 1:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I do not recall the original quotes attributed to Mr. Bridges mentioning anything about threats

    That's because he didn't mention it. I learned it from another source, who I cannot divulge, but trust me: it's 100% accurate.

    so I am not aware of where this additional information arose.

    Bullshit. I've told it to you directly 3 times already. This was the fourth. Every time we've discussed this case, you bring up the same ridiculous claim, and I tell you why it happened the way it did.

    If it arose from quotes attributed to Mr. Bridges and presented elsewhere, then I am highly skeptical as to their veracity.

    No, it did not come from Mr. Bridges.

    US Attorneys are not dumb, and it would be the height of dumb to make any such suggestion to opposing counsel, not to mention illegal and grounds for almost certain disciplinary action by the bar.

    You can't be that naive. You don't think this is how they act all the time? Holy crap. I've got a bridge to sell you leading to an outer borough...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Dec 25th, 2011 @ 3:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    it should be noted that 18 USC 2323(b) also pertains as it is the tie-back to 18 USC 891

    (I assume you mean 981, not 891, which contains definitions and rules of construction for "extortionate credit transactions.")

    18 USC 2323(b) pertains to criminal forfeiture - that is, forfeiture "in imposing sentence on a person convicted of an offense."

    Nor does it reference 18 USC 981. I don't know where you got that idea. It references 21 USC 853, "Criminal Forfeitures" (naturally enough). No part of 18 USC 2323 is referenced anywhere in 18 USC 981.

    it is not at all clear who actually owns/runs the site and where he/she/they reside.

    That would be easy to ascertain with a subpoena to the webhosts, who are required to give that information, or lose safe harbors.

    And you'd give up the ability to hide your information from a WHOIS lookup, just to give the government a better ability to suppress speech? That's kind of alarming.

    Also, merry Xmas!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 25th, 2011 @ 3:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Having dealt with US Attorneys at the DOJ on innumerable occasions, not once have I ever been on the receiving end of an overt threat as you describe.

    You note that Mr. Bridges was not the source for the information about the alleged threat, a threat presumably made by a US Attorney. My recollection is that to date all references to what the DOJ said were attributed to Mr. Bridges. Thus, whoever related the threat to you was either someone who talked with him, someone who was present when it was allegedly made, or someone who heard about it second hand. Perhaps it is true, but I am inclined to be skeptical of third party accounts that are hearsay.

    I take it you do not really own a bridge that you have available for sale. If I am mistaken, feel free to send me a prospectus and I will give it fair consideration.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 25th, 2011 @ 3:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yow, you are so full of shit its amazing you haven't died from dysentery all these years.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 25th, 2011 @ 3:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Should have been 2323(a)(2), not 2323(b), which in pertinent part provides:

    "The provisions of chapter 46 relating to civil forfeitures shall extend to any seizure or civil forfeiture under this section."

    2323(a)(1)(B) relates (See: 18 USC(a)(1)(A))to 17 USC 506 (copyright infringement), and 2323(a)(2) relates to the civil forfeiture provisions of Chapter 46 to Title 18.

    Sorry, but it is difficult to keep letters and numbers straight when switching back and forth between multiple IE 9 windows.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 25th, 2011 @ 3:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Merry Christmas to you as well....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Dec 25th, 2011 @ 4:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "The provisions of chapter 46 relating to civil forfeitures shall extend to any seizure or civil forfeiture under this section."

    Yeah, but that's the trick: the statute doesn't say which Chapter 46 provisions, and most of them pretty obviously don't apply to copyright seizures. Since copyright seizures are not mentioned at all in 981, which explicitly lists all statutes for which it applies, I'd say that the general rules are the ones that do apply.

    Obviously, I'm not a lawyer.

    Now, off to eat Xmas dinner.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 25th, 2011 @ 6:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    2323 adds things to the "list" covered by 981, which is why I noted earlier that it would have been much easier to simply amend 981.

    BTW, its 981 because it is the section in Chapter 46 that deals with subject matter subject to civil seizure.

    I know you are NAL, but I can assure you that on the copyright learning curve you are well past many lawyers I have met who strut before clients and tell them they are copyright experts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110.  
    icon
    doughless (profile), Dec 30th, 2011 @ 10:03am

    Re:

    ^

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111.  
    icon
    bongo houzi (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 1:23pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    troll or tard?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112.  
    icon
    bongo houzi (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 2:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    copy protected shit

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113.  
    icon
    bongo houzi (profile), Jan 12th, 2012 @ 2:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    copy protected shit

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This