[discuss] Some more legal tangles for ICANN
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Mon Jun 30 12:35:51 UTC 2014
To Nick's point, the court in the US can take judicial notice of public
facts as well that are not presented to them, the issue is that a judge
must be aware of what he or she does not know...
This is where one hopes that counsel have equipped themselves well in
filings and arguments. All too often technical cases are not presented
in a way that is comprehended by those not part of the system.
I would like to add again, there is a difference between concerns of the
state/country of incorporation and the choice of law related to
decisions. They need not be the same. I have not heard any issues
brought up related to CA's not-for-profit law...
On 6/30/2014 6:18 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> On 29 Jun 2014, at 21:11, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
>> Legal contests are often a matter of both.
>>> The fact that the judgment is invalid is not a reflection upon the =
>>> former (though if they=92re chasing down this route someone is certainly =
>>> giving someone bad advice).
>> The fact? What fact?
> I won't repeat them again, they've been stated several times very clearly in this thread.
>> The only fact I see is the judgement as it stands.
> Then you are being very selective in what you are reading, or accepting.
>> If a court of competent jurisdiction rules it invalid only then will
>> that become the fact of the matter.
>> Your use of "fact" and "certainly" seem hyperbolic to me.
> Read more closely. You'll find there is very clear articulation of the fact that the US court does not have jurisdiction, and never could have.
>>> It isn=92t flippancy to call a spade a spade.
>> No, but it seems to me flippant to characterize opinions and best
>> guesses as facts and certitude.
> I would argue that you are either unwilling or uninterested in seeing facts that are clearly and obviously the case. But that's your privilege :)
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss