URL Source: [None] Post Date: 2015-01-05 22:01:50 by tpaine
L.A. Times v. Free Republic
Source: The Washington Post.
I can see it now: The Washington Post v. Liberty Post courtesy of tpaine.
How much did the lawsuit cost Free Republic?
Sys Admin - I suggest you remove the article and include tpaine in your ping since he posted it. Goldi Has repeatedly stated NOTHING is to be posted from The Washington Post as per the letter TWP sent to her and tpaine KNOWS this. I suspect that is why he intentionally left the source blank.
Goldi Has repeatedly stated NOTHING is to be posted from The Washington Post as per the letter TWP sent to her and tpaine know this. I suspect that is why he intentionally left the source blank.
Not good.
Palmdale posted on 2015-01-06 20:35:13 ET ReplyTrace
Goldi Has repeatedly stated NOTHING is to be posted from The Washington Post as per the letter TWP sent to her and tpaine know this. I suspect that is why he intentionally left the source blank.
Not good.
Not good at all!!!
Gatlin posted on 2015-01-06 20:38:20 ET ReplyTrace
Are you guys saying that tpaine deliberately posted copyrighted material and attempted to hide that it was coming from such a source? That is a serious charge.
Tpaine, I'm giving you the opportunity to explain whether or not this is the case. In the meantime I am going to redact the original article until the truth of this can be determined.
I'd say we should wait and see if the washpost sends us another infringement notice. -- I'd bet that since we no longer have an 'owner' (subject to finding Goldies will), that they simply won't bother, and so will no one else.
Yes, I now "own" the virtual server LP is running on as I am the one one paying the bill. Very soon LP will be running on my own server. I am the one who will be held responsible for any violations.
I'm very sorry, but I will not tolerate illegal actions of any kind here. NO WARNINGS FOR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. You're gone.
Since the offending material has been removed I will leave this thread here as a warning. I'll leave it open for now but may lock it after hearing what the community has to say.
sysadmin posted on 2015-01-06 20:53:31 ET ReplyTrace
Poster Comment:
Shot down by nanny state community organizers, tater and palmjob.
The bloviating gasbag also known a tpaine was removed from the site for knowing violating posting rules and putting any and all owners of this site in legal and fiscal peril.
The registration information shows eNom, Inc (R39-LROR), and "Raw Registrar Data December 28, 2014" indicates registrar info in Panama, with the name of the contact information listed as "WhoisGuard Protected."
The "Old Registrar Info" shows shows Tucows Inc. (R11-LROR), and "Old Raw Registrar Data February 17, 2010" with a location of 12 Carroll St., Suite 6022, Westminster, MD 32256 with the administrative contact information listed as Goldi Lox at the same address. The technical contact information lists Goldi Lox at the same address except the zip code is listed as 21157.
32256 is Jacksonville, FL. 21157 is Westminster, MD.
The legal owner of the site would appear to be the estate of Goldi-Lox. The site registration was changed post-mortem. If the domain ownership was released for non-payment, it could have been purchased by a new owner of the domain name. If someone just paid the bill, then the domain name remains with the estate of Goldi. Any equipment owned by Goldi, such as a server, would be part of her estate. I recall LP having a fund raiser to buy a new server some time back.
Assuming Goldi was truly intestate (no will), if the State does not find a living relative, estate property goes to the State of Florida. Unless someone at LP is a living relative, they are not going to inherit any property such as a server.
Things such as insurance policies designated to some person or organization go as designated.
LP is running on a rented server, so there is no physical material associated with the Liberty Post web site.
In my view, given the time SysAdmin has been working with Goldi, he is the next logical successor to taking over LP.
In spite of that view, SysAdmin has made it clear on LP that it's possible the domain name could be legally claimed by some party who claims a right to Goldi's estate. But unless and until that happens, SysAdmin has defacto and IMO, moral right to run the site.
BTW, Goldi did not pay for the domain's initial domain name registration, so if a legal issue were to be made on those grounds....
Finally, SysAdmin is a very good guy. That he has unwillingly found himself having to make decisions that would inevitably result in him being called profanities by some objectionable party doesn't change the fact that he's a good guy.
Former clown posse members are NOT welcome here. Please leave on your own. Or as soon as you are outted by those here who hate you, you will removed.
FYI, as I was a former CP member, and Goldi said none were welcome at LP anymore, I voluntarily chose to stop posting at LP a little over five years ago when Goldi published her policy (several years after CP went out of existence).
I have no personal interest in what LP does other than the curiosity of an outsider looking in. It is a rather unique circumstance I haven't heard of before.
Certainly, all those who consider it "home" would like the site to continue.
In my view, given the time SysAdmin has been working with Goldi, he is the next logical successor to taking over LP.
In my view, the next logical successor would not be an anonymous sysadmin. It could be that person with his or her LP handle revealed so the members would know who is being put in charge. If his/her posting history is unobjectionable, his/her handle should not be a problem.
In spite of that view, SysAdmin has made it clear on LP that it's possible the domain name could be legally claimed by some party who claims a right to Goldi's estate. But unless and until that happens, SysAdmin has defacto and IMO, moral right to run the site.
I doubt anyone with a claim on the estate will turn up and be interested in LP. All that needs be done is to let the domain ownership expire and be released, and then have sysadmin or whoever claim it and pay for it. When CP (Clown Posse) expired, someone bought the domain name.
I reckon someone has to suppervise the site, if it is to continue, and sysadmin seems to be one who knows what needs to be done, and has the ability to get it done (with assistance from someone such as yourself, as necessary).
As I noted upstream at #12, "It should be noted that tpaine was wrong to post the offending material. tpaine was also wrong to advocate doing it again. His banning was justified — LP can't just let him do it again and again. Removing the offending material was correct and necessary."
BTW, Goldi did not pay for the domain's initial domain name registration, so if a legal issue were to be made on those grounds...
This argument lacks merit. Who paid is not important. Who held the title when Goldi died is important. If you pay for a car and place the title in my name, you have no claim to the car should I die. It would be part of my estate. If the domain name or the site has value, it belongs to the estate.
Finally, SysAdmin is a very good guy.
Sysadmin may be a wonderful, very good, very talented guy who is the best person for the job. Title to the site does not devolve on the basis of being an anonymous good guy, or even a known good guy. Title does not devolve even upon unanimous support of LP posters. The domain is owned and not by them.
That he has unwillingly found himself having to make decisions that would inevitably result in him being called profanities by some objectionable party doesn't change the fact that he's a good guy.
A saint could take over and would be called objectionable names. I have not called him any names.
A problem is that LP is just a website. Nothing belongs to it. Even the archives belong to the estate of Goldi. Somebody must be responsible to answer potential copyright or libel actions. Right now, I reckon that is probably the executor of the estate of Goldi.
Any authority granted by Goldi to her agent sysadmin died with Goldi. Even had he been granted a power of attorney to act as sysadmin, it died with the Principal, Goldi. Sysadmin has published knowledge of Goldi's death and there can be no legal claim to use prior authority to take over the management of her affairs post mortem.
Absent a will, it is just a bit messy.
SysAdmin has defacto and IMO, moral right to run the site.
Actually, Sysadmin has no authority. Any authority he had as Goldi's agent died with Goldi and his knowledge of her death.
Section 111 of the Uniform Power of Attorney Act provides that the power of attorney terminates when the principal dies. This rule is followed in all states. For example, Florida laws state that a power of attorney expires upon the principal’s death. In this situation, the agent no longer has authority to act on behalf of the principal, and the principal’s successors take over the management of his affairs.
Validation of Agent's Actions
In some situations the agent may not know of the principal’s death and may continue to act under the power of attorney, for example, by paying bills or signing documents. If the agent does not know that the principal has died, the law generally allows him to continue acting as agent until he is notified of the death. For example, Chapter 1337.091 of the Ohio Code states that if an agent carries out his duties without knowing that the principal has died, his actions remain valid, provided that he acts in good faith.
709.2109 Termination or suspension of power of attorney or agent’s authority.—
(1) A power of attorney terminates when:
(a) The principal dies;
(b) The principal becomes incapacitated, if the power of attorney is not
durable;
(c) The principal is adjudicated totally or partially incapacitated by a court,
unless the court determines that certain authority granted by the power of
attorney is to be exercisable by the agent;
(d) The principal revokes the power of attorney;
(e) The power of attorney provides that it terminates;
(f) The purpose of the power of attorney is accomplished; or
(g) The agent’s authority terminates and the power of attorney does not provide
for another agent to act under the power of attorney.
(2) An agent’s authority is exercisable until the authority terminates. An
agent’s authority terminates when:
(a) The agent dies, becomes incapacitated, resigns, or is removed by a court;
(b) An action is filed for the dissolution or annulment of the agent’s marriage
to the principal or for their legal separation, unless the power of attorney
otherwise provides; or
(c) The power of attorney terminates.
(3) If any person initiates judicial proceedings to determine the principal’s
incapacity or for the appointment of a guardian advocate, the authority granted
under the power of attorney is suspended until the petition is dismissed or
withdrawn or the court enters an order authorizing the agent to exercise one or
more powers granted under the power of attorney.
(a) If an emergency arises after initiation of proceedings to determine
incapacity and before adjudication regarding the principal’s capacity, the agent
may petition the court in which the proceeding is pending for authorization to
exercise a power granted under the power of attorney. The petition must set
forth the nature of the emergency, the property or matter involved, and the
power to be exercised by the agent.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, unless otherwise ordered by
the court, a proceeding to determine incapacity does not affect the authority of
the agent to make health care decisions for the principal, including, but not
limited to, those provided in chapter 765. If the principal has executed a
health care advance directive designating a health care surrogate, the terms of
the directive control if the directive and the power of attorney are in conflict
unless the power of attorney is later executed and expressly states otherwise.
(4) Termination or suspension of an agent’s authority or of a power of attorney
is not effective as to an agent who, without knowledge of the termination or
suspension, acts in good faith under the power of attorney. An act so performed,
unless otherwise invalid or unenforceable, binds the principal and the
principal’s successors in interest.
History.—s. 11, ch. 2011-210.
In my view, the next logical successor would not be an anonymous sysadmin. It could be that person with his or her LP handle revealed so the members would know who is being put in charge. If his/her posting history is unobjectionable, his/her handle should not be a problem.
Members have no legal right to know the true identity of SysAdmin. Therefore, assuming control of the site does not obligate SysAdmin to disclose his own personal information.
This argument lacks merit. Who paid is not important. Who held the title when Goldi died is important. If you pay for a car and place the title in my name, you have no claim to the car should I die. It would be part of my estate. If the domain name or the site has value, it belongs to the estate.
Well, the key here is the domain name and data have a pretty much zero value, which will be evidenced by the fact that no claim will be made on it.
SysAdmin has defacto and IMO, moral right to run the site.
Actually, Sysadmin has no authority. Any authority he had as Goldi's agent died with Goldi and his knowledge of her death.
That's why I say it's now de facto his site. He has control of both the domain and the DB. Any laws saying otherwise mean nothing unless and until something is acted upon through those laws. Absent such actions, he has full power over the site. And unchallenged power = de facto authority. That is how it works when one country invades another, after all, and for the same reasons.
Nolu, one thing I have gained an appreciation for living in Ecuador is just how limited laws are. Laws are not some kind of magical, inescapable, edicts of God that intertwine with the fabric of the universe. They are merely tools which affected people either seek to use to further their own causes, or obstacles which people seek to overcome in furthering their own cause. Laws are limited by the degree to which they are enforced, and have no power beyond that point. This is true in every country, including the USA.
Ergo, no matter what laws exist, such as those you cited, that might imply that LP is part of Goldi's estate, if no action is taken on such laws then the laws are of no significance whatsoever. That's the reality, and reality trumps law.
nolu chan (#41) ---- And In my view, the next logical successor would not be an anonymous sysadmin. It could be that person with his or her LP handle revealed so the members would know who is being put in charge. If his/her posting history is unobjectionable, his/her handle should not be a problem.
Pinguinite--- Members have no legal right to know the true identity of SysAdmin. Therefore, assuming control of the site does not obligate SysAdmin to disclose his own personal information.
Pinguinite, technically, I'd suppose you're right. But I doubt a group of your peers would agree. -- And the consent of our peers is a big part of what our law is based upon.
In the FWIW category, I'd say that sysadmin doesn't have to be public but has to be available for a DMCA takedown notice. It's one of the things attached to domain names and keeping accurate records for your registrar, even if you stealth your DNS registration through Panama to hide the site's owners' info from the public.
#63. To: TooConservative, tpaine, Pinguinite (#58)
In the FWIW category, I'd say that sysadmin doesn't have to be public but has to be available for a DMCA takedown notice. It's one of the things attached to domain names and keeping accurate records for your registrar, even if you stealth your DNS registration through Panama to hide the site's owners' info from the public.
People making a choice should have the opportunity to make an informed choice.
Your milage may vary, but would other candidates be permitted to seek votes as the anonymous Candidate #1, Candidate #2, etc.
Moreover, the true identity of Sysadmin is not his LP handle. That only allows people to see what he has posted under his anonymous handle, unless he used his real name as his handle. Goldi-Lox was not the true identity of the previous owner.
Moreover, the true identity of Sysadmin is not his LP handle. That only allows people to see what he has posted under his anonymous handle, unless he used his real name as his handle. Goldi-Lox was not the true identity of the previous owner.
I know you're making a point but it escapes me. It seems you're stating the obvious. Probably I'm reading poorly as I don't see how that relates directly to our earlier topic.
I'm just saying that sysadmin can be anonymous but the website has to have official contact info to receive takedown notices if necessary. Some ISPs will terminate you for not keeping your info up to date as a result of bad experiences with this.
[#55 Pinguinite] Members have no legal right to know the true identity of SysAdmin.
[#58 TooConservative] In the FWIW category, I'd say that sysadmin doesn't have to be public but has to be available for a DMCA takedown notice.
[#60 nc] Ok, let me clarify. If he wanted people to vote for him, he should have sought those votes using his known handle and not as the anonymous Sysadmin. People making a choice should have the opportunity to make an informed choice.
[#63 nc] People making a choice should have the opportunity to make an informed choice. Your milage may vary, but would other candidates be permitted to seek votes as the anonymous Candidate #1, Candidate #2, etc. Moreover, the true identity of Sysadmin is not his LP handle.
[#64 nc] I know you're making a point but it escapes me. It seems you're stating the obvious. Probably I'm reading poorly as I don't see how that relates directly to our earlier topic. I'm just saying that sysadmin can be anonymous but the website has to have official contact info to receive takedown notices if necessary.
The official notice for takedown notices can list Sysadmin with contact information. Its purpose is to facilitate contact with an authorized and legally responsible person.
I am speaking to having a vote and not knowing who you are voting for. Pinguinite's objection is that no one has a right to know the true identity of SysAdmin. I agree, but the voting members of LP have an apparent interest in knowing the handle by which all the candidates are known.
It just sounds too much like Obamacare. You have to elect him to find out who he is and what he will do. And only a single candidate has the option to suppress knowledge of his handle. I do not think asking to know who you are voting for is asking too much. I am not referring to a true real world identity, but to the handle by which the site members have come to know sysadmin and his expressed opinions.
I am just clarifying that the reference to true identity is obscuring and inapplicable. Nobody has mentioned or cares what his true identity is.
[#60 nc] Ok, let me clarify. If he wanted people to vote for him, he should have sought those votes using his known handle and not as the anonymous Sysadmin. People making a choice should have the opportunity to make an informed choice.
LP has had a sysadmin account for years. I'm not sure it has been held by the same guy all that time. Even in 2003, you can see sysadmin posting system-type messages to Neil or posts to Goldi about outages.
So this current sysadmin may only be the latest in a series for all we know.
At any rate, sysadmin only ever posted info about the server, downtime, upgrades, etc.
