Very good points thanks for the clarification.
However...............
I still feel that the fact that Netsol acknowledges the transfer
proves that they know, they are no longer the registrars of that domain.
Correct??
If that is true then when they send the request for renewal,
they are in fact committing fraud, but more importantly
they are causing undue worry and concern to the owner of the domain.
Not to mention wasting the time and resources of the ISP's involved
or have I missed something on this?
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of William X. Walsh
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 8:13 PM
To: A. I. Sinclair
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re[2]: Net Sol invoices
Hello A.,
Friday, December 08, 2000, 4:18:54 PM, you wrote:
> Remember the movie The Firm with Tom Cruise.
> I believe the law is that if you issue a "fraudulent" invoice and send it
> through the mail, it is classified as a fedreal offence by virtue of the
> fact that you use a federal service (the postal service) to deliver the
> invoice.
> I am not a US citizen so I would leave it to the US RSPs to handle this.
There are a lot of major legal differences between the NSI case, and
the fictional case in the movie. The biggest one being that this is
real life :)
The second one is that the "Firm" sent out invoices knowingly with the
INTENT to fraud. The last time I asked an attorney about this topic,
I was told quite clearly that the intent to fraud was an absolutely
necessary element.
It is for this reason that I think any cased based on this premise
will fail. NSI has a plausible defense to the "intent" portions.
Negligence, even if inaction occurs after being made away of the
negligence, doesn't rise to the level of "intent to fraud."
Without clear intent, there is no mail fraud.
And remember, the burden to prove intent is on the prosecution, who
must do so beyond any reasonable doubt "and to a moral certainty." In
a civil case, the burden is lower, only requiring that intent be
proven to a "preponderance of the evidence." A civil case, however,
will require that a plaintiff or set of plaintiffs bear the brunt of
the legal expenses to bring that case, and in any event, without some
kind of "smoking gun" to prove intent would probably be just as
unlikely to succeed.
I find the prospect of the mail fraud investigation interesting, but I
doubt it will ever amount to any serious challenge to NSI, beyond
maybe providing the final needed step to require them to fix their
systems once and for all.
--
Best regards,
William mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
