Page 684 of 687

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:27 am
by bpaw
Thanks Mullard.

I know it is a revisit of previous discussions and not really able to change anything but many of the High Court NPOs were for disclosure from many ISPs at the same time. With the witness statement provided to them, if even one ISP objected to the witness statement, could that have progressed to further analysis of the evidence?

I don't know what may happen with the DEA and any chance of NPOs in the future, but if the witness statement is ever used again, I hope ISPs won't be so spineless as before.

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:34 am
by Mullard47
bpaw wrote:Thanks Mullard.

I know it is a revisit of previous discussions and not really able to change anything but many of the High Court NPOs were for disclosure from many ISPs at the same time. With the witness statement provided to them, if even one ISP objected to the witness statement, could that have progressed to further analysis of the evidence?

I don't know what may happen with the DEA and any chance of NPOs in the future, but if the witness statement is ever used again, I hope ISPs won't be so spineless as before.


The stereotypical NPO would cater of a situation where a claimant has a prima facie case against an unknown party and the objective is to identify that party, where the identity sought by the NPO is that of that party. I suspect that had the NPO's been applied for on a footing other than the subscriber being likely to be the party who personally conducted the infringement, then questions would have been asked which, in the event, were not.

The MediaCAT NPO's involved several copyright owners and it is arguable that the owners should have been joined for the purposes of the NPO and that a separate NPO would have been needed for each owner. But that is somewhat hypothetical. They only applied for NPO's where the ISP's did not contest, and worked on the footing that MediaCAT could proceed with an action in their sole name.

I imagine that the saga that went on in the PCC has not gone unnoticed and that any further NPO applications of this sort would be closely scrutinised. As HHJ Birss said, if the party whose identity is sought might not be the eventual defendant, than that is something that warrants further consideration at the NPO application stage. The matter is also referred to in this article Media CAT v Adams: the CAT that did not get the cream.

As to the DEA and similar legislation, the underlying issue is, as someone eloquently said, uncorroborated opinion is being accepted as fact in the absence of evidence. The government have made it clear that any "evidence" that is used as a basis of further legislation has got to be proper evidence which has been and/or is capable of peer review. In my opinion, the same should apply to the already enacted measures before they proceed any further with them.

I see that the Crossley hearing is before the same three who heard the DL case. See HERE.

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:46 pm
by concerned100
And it's the same solicitor too.

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:36 am
by Mullard47
concerned100 wrote:And it's the same solicitor too.


I imagine that having handled the DL issue, they will be well versed from the matinee performance.

It will be interesting to see exactly what they are referring to when they said "Acted without integrity in that he provided false information in statements made to the Court."

Does anyone propose going to see what happens?

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:32 pm
by Renegade
http://www.chooseisp.co.uk/broadband-gu ... -lies.html

Still can't keep himself out of the press, even if only review articles.. looking forward to next weeks entertainment now.

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:50 am
by lymmranger
Renegade wrote:http://www.chooseisp.co.uk/broadband-guide/news/acs-law-guide-filesharing-lies.html

Still can't keep himself out of the press, even if only review articles.. looking forward to next weeks entertainment now.


it would be nice if this hit ALL the mainstream press....

but what the hell - its a brilliant and fairly constructed article

....nice find (as usual Ren) :D :D :D

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:52 am
by bpaw
After the hearing, maybe they could consider Crossley for this available job with the SRA:

http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/jobs/disciplinary-and-litigation-adviser.page

A qualified solicitor or barrister, you will have significant experience of litigation in private practice or a regulatory environment and a knowledge of the Solicitors Act 1974, the Legal Services Act 2007 and the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. Excellent drafting, analytical and communication skills are key, as is a commitment to work as part of a team and the ability to work under pressure and to deadlines.

Maybe not.....

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:24 pm
by Hickster
Renegade wrote:http://www.chooseisp.co.uk/broadband-guide/news/acs-law-guide-filesharing-lies.html

Still can't keep himself out of the press, even if only review articles.. looking forward to next weeks entertainment now.


Aww my Blog ignored again :shock: Nevermind.

bpaw wrote:After the hearing, maybe they could consider Crossley for this available job with the SRA:

http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/jobs/disciplinary-and-litigation-adviser.page

A qualified solicitor or barrister, you will have significant experience of litigation in private practice or a regulatory environment and a knowledge of the Solicitors Act 1974, the Legal Services Act 2007 and the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. Excellent drafting, analytical and communication skills are key, as is a commitment to work as part of a team and the ability to work under pressure and to deadlines.

Maybe not.....


Well why not.....

One of the Ex ACS peeps are now here... http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/CareersHom ... Barrister/ (dont let the irony choke you lol)

And another is here.... http://myworld.ebay.co.uk/leyladelight/ (Leyla Mehru)

Roll on Monday 16th, been a long time comming to hear this fat person sing. He might even get a fine lol judging on past SDT findings... :puke:

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:27 am
by Dustin_D_Lense
Mullard47 wrote:I see that the Crossley hearing is before the same three who heard the DL case. See HERE.


I notice the expected duration of the substantive hearing is only 1 day.

Im sure the DL case was much longer and Im wondering if due to similarity and the fact much of the work was inherited from DL and case details already heard and ruled on, ie the panel are already up to speed on the nature of the case.

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:24 am
by concerned100
Interesting to see that the judge today deemed O'Dwyer's conduct to be a criminal offence here as well. Doesn't sound right but I'll have to have another look at some of the cases and the statute.

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:45 pm
by bpaw
With GEIL, I smell something very similar to what might appear in Crossleys undies on Monday.

A snippet from GEIL abbreviated accounts filed by Mr Becker & Mr Honey 19/12/11 for FYE 31/03/11:

Image

I assume one share for Mr Becker and one share for Mr Honey.

A snippet from an allotment of shares (SH01) filed on 10/01/2012:

Image

Additional 98 shares totalling 100 shares at 1 GBP each.

No other real detail in the SH01 document, so no detail on shareholders. For what reason are additional shares allocated for a company who had utter failure in what seemed to be their primary purpose is a mystery to me.

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:32 pm
by Mullard47
bpaw wrote:With GEIL, I smell something very similar to what might appear in Crossleys undies on Monday.

A snippet from GEIL abbreviated accounts filed by Mr Becker & Mr Honey 19/12/11 for FYE 31/03/11:

Image

I assume one share for Mr Becker and one share for Mr Honey.

A snippet from an allotment of shares (SH01) filed on 10/01/2012:

Image

Additional 98 shares totalling 100 shares at 1 GBP each.

No other real detail in the SH01 document, so no detail on shareholders. For what reason are additional shares allocated for a company who had utter failure in what seemed to be their primary purpose is a mystery to me.


Maybe there was a share issue to raise capital to pay for the costs of the litigation, but it was undersubscribed.

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:07 am
by concerned100
Mullard47 wrote:
concerned100 wrote:And it's the same solicitor too.


I imagine that having handled the DL issue, they will be well versed from the matinee performance.

It will be interesting to see exactly what they are referring to when they said "Acted without integrity in that he provided false information in statements made to the Court."

Does anyone propose going to see what happens?


Wonder if the SDT has instructed the same Counsel as for DL. Also will be interesting to see if Crossley defends himself having pleaded poverty. He could always tell his girlfriend or his mother or whoever owns it to sell the Bentley.

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:45 pm
by DukePPUk
concerned100 wrote:Interesting to see that the judge today deemed O'Dwyer's conduct to be a criminal offence here as well. Doesn't sound right but I'll have to have another look at some of the cases and the statute.

There's only really one other case on this sort of thing, which is the unreported TV Links case (listed as R v Rock & Overton in the ruling). The two main issues are whether or not providing links to something are "communicating [it] to the public" (under s107(2A) CDPA) and what level of involvement in running the site is required to lose the 'mere conduit' etc. protections of the Electronic Commerce Directive. The judge seems to have ignored the first part, and found that the latter protections were probably lost (unlike in TV Links) due to users being "vetted" (which I'm told didn't actually happen). However, they're appealing the case on that point.

Also, for anyone interested, the Digital Economy Act Judicial Review is in the Court of Appeal today (10.30am Court 68). It doesn't look like I'm going to make it, but I imagine someone will be tweeting from it.

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:39 am
by concerned100
What I found unusual was that the judge was prepared to rule that the alleged offence was criminal.

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:43 am
by DukePPUk
That's not particularly unusual in that it just takes a broad interpretation of s107(2A) CDPA, and a narrow interpretation of the e-Commerce Directive. Reading the ruling, I get the feeling that he might have made his decision on principle (i.e. "someone making quite a bit of money running a website dedicated to copyright infringement should be punished") and then fit his interpretation of the law around that. However, I imagine he realised that whichever way he ruled the case would end up in the High Court.

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:20 am
by Mullard47
As regards Crossley, word is that he has admitted all of the allegations except for the one about false information being provided to the court.

http://twitter.com/#!/search?q=%23acslaw

I wonder if those admissions are qualified by an "on their interpretation of the rules" proviso?

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:21 am
by steveh
SDT in full swing. Crossley admits charges 1 to 6, but not allegation 7 relating to the data breaches.

In defence about the data breaches he said that it was as a result of being attacked by 700 criminals and fault of his ISP that left backup on the server. Said that Terrance Tsang chose the ISP.

Adjourned to consider verdict on data breaches charge.

Next up will be Crossley giving mitigation on the charges he admits to.

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:59 am
by Mullard47
Can anyone clarify what the charges actually are. I don't recall there being any charge relating to the data breach at all, and I would be surprised if referring to what happened with his web site as "hacking" in his resignation letter at the PCC would be considered "false information" such as to be a charge in its own right.

The charges, as stated at the time, were:-

1) Allowed his independence to be compromised

2) Acted contrary to the best interests of his clients

3) Acted in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public places in him or in the legal profession

4) Entered into arrangements to receive contingency fees for work done in prosecuting or defending contentious proceedings before the Courts of England and Wales except as permitted by statute or the common law

5) Acted where there was a conflict of interest in circumstances not permitted, in particular because there was a conflict with those of his clients

6) Used his position as a Solicitor to take or attempt to take unfair advantage of other persons being recipients of letters of claim either for his own benefit or for the benefit of his clients.

7) Acted without integrity in that he provided false information in statements made to the Court.

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:06 am
by Countalucard
steveh wrote:SDT in full swing. Crossley admits charges 1 to 6, but not allegation 7 relating to the data breaches.

In defence about the data breaches he said that it was as a result of being attacked by 700 criminals and fault of his ISP that left backup on the server. Said that Terrance Tsang chose the ISP.

Adjourned to consider verdict on data breaches charge.

Next up will be Crossley giving mitigation on the charges he admits to.



Pah.

He named himself as data controller without regard for the responsibilities that entails. It's one thing being in charge of a butty shop with a six hundred strong mailing list and another to have financial, address, unfounded allegations of 20000+ people.

If he didn't want to get the flak he should have either done the job properly or appointed someone competent (not you tezza) to do the job properly.

Not that i am too pissed about this, it his own incompetence and hubris that brought this mess to the ground so quickly - and for that we should be grateful. Imagine if he was a half decent solicitor.

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:38 am
by steveh
Mullard47 wrote:
7) Acted without integrity in that he provided false information in statements made to the Court.[/i]

This one got dropped by SRA. The additional one of the data breaches was added recently, which he denied.

The data charges was proven.

Then he gave his mitigating circumstances for all the charges, and tribunal will resume at 2: 30 to announce their findings.


Edit 2:55 and they are still deliberating

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:12 am
by steveh
Crossley suspended for 2 years from today and to pay costs of 76,326.55

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:37 am
by tohellwithDL
What was the 55p for? :D

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:39 am
by Mullard47
tohellwithDL wrote:What was the 55p for? :D


A packet of tissues?

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:59 am
by Countalucard
steveh wrote:Crossley suspended for 2 years from today and to pay costs of 76,326.55



Is this a proper fine that he has to pay or does his bankruptcy prevent him sticking his hands in his pocket?