Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Moderator: ArthurWankspittle

Determinator
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Determinator » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:22 pm

The Seventh String wrote:I'm a bit surprised the court seems to have issued an injunction without enquiring what exactly is so urgent about this matter that an injunction is required at all, never mind an ex parte one. Especially as the excluded party could have resolved the whole thing in short order by pointing out they aren't the body the plaintif shouild be going after.

I do wonder if part of the problem is that many legal (and political) decision makers don't seem to quite understand the most basic things about how this new fangled interwebby thingy works and hangs together, despite home internet access being available for around 25 years.

My point precisely! The court did wrong on both counts. There was nothing urgent, the witness statement shows no urgency whatsoever, and neither was the injuncted party in any way responsible for the issues Mr Bennison raised. Furthermore, ex parte applications should only be granted in cases where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the application, a typical example is an interim charging order, intended to stop you from disposing of the property. Nominet were not going to get rid of the domain, since they are the one and only .uk domain registry.

Determinator
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Determinator » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:30 pm

Siegfried Shrink wrote:The crucial mistake (that no one with any legal experience should make) is confusing abuse of process with abuse of person.

Abuse of process is what Mr Bennison did here, as ex parte interim injunctions are not intended for this purpose. But his critical error was to confuse personal abuse with abusive domain registration. The examples below illustrate what an abusive registration would be, even when there would be no "abuse" against the rightful domain owners on a personal level. Just like abuse of process means misusing the court system as opposed to shouting abuse at a judge...

Gregg wrote:Better to the point. "Deltaairlinessux.com" is not likely to be mistaken as the official site delta.com, but say a travel agency in the early days had bought "flydelta.com" and was booking travel on it. At one time it might have been perfectly legal and Delta could do little more than deny the bookings.

Even better, say someone who hated delta instead of deltasux.com had deltaairlines.com, and was also taking orders but not passing them on (not taking the money even) and letting people show up at the airport and not have tickets. That would be disrupting the business.

At one time, Ford did not own Ford.com, they eventually got it but in the early days our site was fordvehicles.com

Just like bbc.com, which the BBC had to pay £200,000 to obtain. Those were the early days of the internet, before rules were put in place to prevent abuse of domain names, rules that have in place been since the new millennium, only it has taken 17 years for some people to find out about them, and then completely misunderstand them!

Bungle
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:26 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Bungle » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:15 pm

beaujest wrote:WITNESS STATEMENT OF JASON BENNISON

2. I make this statement to support my application for an injunction requiring the
defendant to suspend the domain name www .bailiffhelpforumarewrongagain.co.uk

24. Many potential clients have told me they see adverse information when they
search my name on Google as part of their own research. This is a drain on my
resources having to explain to everyone about the website. I have to follow long and
convoluted online procedures to make takedown requests with search engines
including Google.


25. Google dismisses my takedown requests saying “contact the webmaster ” , and
“seek legal advice in your home country ” .


From a posting this morning on another board, it would seem that immediately after securing an interim injunction against Nominet on 25th August, Mr Bennison submitted a 'take down' request to Google, the intention being to request that Google de-index the website from their listings.

Given that the injunction (against Nominet) was an 'interim order' with a return date of 7th September, it is alarming that Google would allow such complaints to be made.

https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/14962938

It seems that this is not the only 'take down' request that has been made to Google in relation to Jason Bennison. The following is a request to de-index- a page from Quatloos from last year.

https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/14093188
TUCO said to me:
“I envy you for the job that you do in helping advise people. If I could choose an occupation, this is what I would like to do. Much of the advice that I pass onto people is heavily influenced by your posts”.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5641
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Burnaby49 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:25 pm

Given that the injunction (against Nominet) was an 'interim order' with a return date of 7th September, it is alarming that Google would allow such complaints to be made.


What's alarming about it? Google can't stop people from complaining. In this case they just told him to get lost.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

AndyPandy
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1130
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 6:29 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby AndyPandy » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:36 pm

Apologies, if this has already been posted, but it's the funniest thing I've read today. Section 23 of the Witness Statement.

23. A person on the website impersonated me in a manner that is obscene. I thoughtthis was disgraceful and threatening. I am alleged to have said:
I have a very small willy
Exhibit JB11.


How was he going to disprove this statement in Court, was there a photo included in Exhibit JB11??? :haha: :haha: :haha:

Determinator
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Determinator » Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:58 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:
Given that the injunction (against Nominet) was an 'interim order' with a return date of 7th September, it is alarming that Google would allow such complaints to be made.


What's alarming about it? Google can't stop people from complaining. In this case they just told him to get lost.

Well, yes and no. In his witness statement, Bennison said that Google ignore his take down requests, etc., however, that statement was drafted for the purpose of obtaining the injunction against Nominet, therefore, before the injunction. Then, on August 25th, he also sent a copy of the injunction against Nominet, to Google, as if it was a "court order, which it was, but only until the return date, it was an INTERIM remedy, not a perpetual injuction.

There was also a "legal request", according to Google, referring to this site: https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/14093188

It would appear that people who are being exposed can just complain to Google of "being defamed" and Google will remove the "defamatory" pages from it search results, without investigating the issues, as Google are not a court, nor do they ask the other side for proof that what they are saying is true, opinion or in the public interest, which are the defences used here in the UK under the Defamation Act 2013. So you couldn't expose, say, a scammer or con artist, because the individual in question could just ask Google to remove the allegedly "defamatory" content, while he/she continues to peddle his/her wares.

Determinator
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Determinator » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:01 pm

AndyPandy wrote:Apologies, if this has already been posted, but it's the funniest thing I've read today. Section 23 of the Witness Statement.

23. A person on the website impersonated me in a manner that is obscene. I thoughtthis was disgraceful and threatening. I am alleged to have said:
I have a very small willy
Exhibit JB11.


How was he going to disprove this statement in Court, was there a photo included in Exhibit JB11??? :haha: :haha: :haha:

Fortunately for all concerned, this was only an injunction hearing and his spurious claim got dismissed by the judge. Had this been a proper defamation claim, then he would have had to prove that this statement was defamatory, on the grounds that he has a big one! :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

longdog
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1735
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby longdog » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:19 pm

I very much doubt a British court would find ".... has got a small willy" was libellous. It's clearly just common abuse and no more libellous than calling somebody a wanker.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?

Hercule Parrot
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1457
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:58 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Hercule Parrot » Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:00 pm

Determinator wrote:It would appear that Mr Bennison misunderstood the purpose of INTERIM injunctions and assumed that they would last forever, or else he expected Nominet not to oppose the injunction, after all, what's one little domain and a disgruntled registrant or two? He failed to overlook the consequences this would have for the whole of the internet in the UK!


I imagine that Bennison thought he was going to prevail, because of his self-perceived immense legal knowledge and charismatic advocacy. Classic Dunning-Kruger, and now he has a £26,000 liability for costs.

You overstate the effect of this episode upon the UK internet. Compared to previous disputes (Godfrey v Demon, or the whole Scientology thing, or Pirate Bay) this is trivial. I'm not seeing any of the legal blogs or IT sites discussing it.
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.

Chaos
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:53 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Chaos » Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:17 pm

Determinator wrote: So you couldn't expose, say, a scammer or con artist, because the individual in question could just ask Google to remove the allegedly "defamatory" content, while he/she continues to peddle his/her wares.



and scum like simon stepsys, doede khan/danny turner etc do precisely that. We can find their scamming history in the US though.

longdog
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1735
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby longdog » Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:35 pm

Hercule Parrot wrote:I imagine that Bennison thought he was going to prevail, because of his self-perceived immense legal knowledge and charismatic advocacy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO569fBzUO8
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby wserra » Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:04 pm

Google will notify web and me in the event of a delisting. It has never happened in the US, and only once in Europe, where Google readily acknowledges that different standards apply.

Google's explanation:
In May 2014, a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (C-131/12, 13 May 2014) found that certain people can ask search engines to remove specific results for queries that include their name, where the interests in those results appearing are outweighed by the person's privacy rights.

When you make such a request, we will balance the privacy rights of the individual with the public's interest to know and the right to distribute information. When evaluating your request, we will look at whether the results include outdated information about you, as well as whether there's a public interest in the information - for example, we may decline to remove certain information about financial scams, professional malpractice, criminal convictions, or public conduct of government officials.
That's it. You can appeal - to Google.

BTW, that one instance of delisting had nothing to do with these boobs. I wrote about it here.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5641
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Burnaby49 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:06 pm

longdog wrote:I very much doubt a British court would find ".... has got a small willy" was libellous. It's clearly just common abuse and no more libellous than calling somebody a wanker.


Keith Richards wrote in his autobiography that Mick Jagger had a "tiny todger". No lawsuit ensued and they recently released another album.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby wserra » Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:12 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:they recently released another album.


"Defamation Row"?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Determinator
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Determinator » Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:58 am

wserra wrote:Google will notify web and me in the event of a delisting. It has never happened in the US, and only once in Europe, where Google readily acknowledges that different standards apply.

That's it. You can appeal - to Google.

BTW, that one instance of delisting had nothing to do with these boobs. I wrote about it here.

It's good to know that delistings can be appealed, otherwise it looks like we are living in a world dominated by Google, the invisible giant who controls what we can and can't see, and who makes arbitrary decisions regarding what to show or not to show us.

On that thread, I found the following, should be interesting to see what happens there, as the EU does have an annoying tendency to over-regulate, one reason why there was a majority Leave vote. Also wonder whether those silly warning messages about cookies will disappear in 2019. Those guys in Brussels seem to have too much time in their hands to come up with all these silly little ideas, likely just a way to justify their salaries.

Siegfried Shrink wrote:I have no idea how Britain withdrawing from the EU will effect a purely EU rule and google.co.uk.

Determinator
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Determinator » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:08 am

Hercule Parrot wrote:You overstate the effect of this episode upon the UK internet. Compared to previous disputes (Godfrey v Demon, or the whole Scientology thing, or Pirate Bay) this is trivial. I'm not seeing any of the legal blogs or IT sites discussing it.

Maybe I shouldn't have said the internet in the UK, but the .uk domains. The internet as such won't be affected but who'd want to register a .uk domain when they can be suspended on a whim? Would be different if the injunction had been applied for by a politician or celebrity, but when a nobody can walk into a court and get an order to take down a website just because he didn't like what was written about him, well, anybody can do that for whatever reason. We have seen that, in his witness statement, he made all sorts of extravagant claims, no doubt intended to convince the court to grant the injunction, but none of these claims were verified, and the one thing that wasn't evident was the reason for the application to be made ex parte. Yet a High Court judge just bowled over and granted the injunction. I could never suggest using a .uk domain after that!

I believe the new defamation legislation overrules the Demon case, which was extremely unfair on Demon. Legislation has always lagged way behind technological advancement, and it looks like our High Court is still a quarter of a century behind the times.

User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 4356
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker
Contact:

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Gregg » Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:03 am

longdog wrote:I very much doubt a British court would find ".... has got a small willy" was libellous. It's clearly just common abuse and no more libellous than calling somebody a wanker.


Besides, truth is an absolute defense to libel. :snicker:
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5641
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Burnaby49 » Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:14 am

Gregg wrote:
longdog wrote:I very much doubt a British court would find ".... has got a small willy" was libellous. It's clearly just common abuse and no more libellous than calling somebody a wanker.


Besides, truth is an absolute defense to libel. :snicker:


Maybe why Jagger didn't sue you.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 2667
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby ArthurWankspittle » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:17 am

Siegfried Shrink wrote:I have no idea how Britain withdrawing from the EU will effect a purely EU rule and google.co.uk.
My understanding is that the UK will look at such rules and decide keep, lose or modify. After all they are already adopted into UK law which is how the system works.
Going to Tibet now and deleting Facebook you have my email address

Determinator
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Determinator » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:36 am

ArthurWankspittle wrote:
Siegfried Shrink wrote:I have no idea how Britain withdrawing from the EU will effect a purely EU rule and google.co.uk.
My understanding is that the UK will look at such rules and decide keep, lose or modify. After all they are already adopted into UK law which is how the system works.

The Great Repeal Bill is intended to implement EU law into UK law, but it's not mandatory to implement each and every EU Directive. EU Directives had to be implemented into domestic law in each EU country, but that only applies while the country is in the EU, otherwise it would be pointless to leave the EU, when one of the reasons to leave was precisely to be free from EU Directives such as these ones.


Return to “United Kingdom”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Linkdex [Bot] and 2 guests