Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
That's definitely not "the first ever".
Have you read the article and the supporting links etc?
The fact that specific case is mentioned numerous times in the article including the first sentence?
Are you talking to me? If you are: The article does not make the title of this thread correct. ("First Ever Criminal Prosecution for Domain Name Theft Underway" may be valid in New Jersey, but here it's misleading.)
The Title of the thread is the title of the article. DomainNameNews has a contact address in IL not NJ. So why do you think this thread is misleading?
The Title of the thread is the title of the article.
"First Ever Criminal Prosecution for Domain Name Theft Underway"
Imagine that you don't have time to dig deeper. You just see the thread title and nothing more.
Imagine that you don't know anything about this stuff.
What will you think? That before this week or month, there had never been any criminal prosecution for domain name theft underway. You've been misled by the title (which should have included the name "New Jersey").
Prosecution of the perpetrator is a criminal action, but a civil suit for negligence against the registrar with a security breach would be civil litigation matter.
the sex.com theft. It was a civil suit, right?
Here's an article about the Supreme Court decision [news.cnet.com] in the sex.com case. Damages awarded = civil ligation, not criminal prosecution.
Unless someone can provide a documented case precedent for legal prosecution for a domain issue, then it's "case closed".
I'm pretty sure there was no criminal prosecution in the sex.com theft. It was a civil suit, right?
Can you give an example of an another [earlier] case?
If that doesn't involve criminal prosecution in the US
You presumbably have the dates to hand ..and maybe even a link ?
Arrest and criminal prosecution are two different animals ..as one of the mods this particular domain forum is very qualified to inform you ..
There are other mods and members in the legal professions ..should you need the distinction explaining further
The arrest warrant was a "bench warrant" for failure to appear for a mandated court appearance.
The warrant and arrest were not a direct consequence of the action with regard to the domain snatching itself. It was for a separate matter; he was not facing criminal prosecution for the domain name theft; the domain theft itself was being pursued for damages as a tort.
Here's the story [zdnetasia.com] and guess what? A bench warrant can be issued for failing to appear for a court date for a traffic ticket. Or even a parking ticket, if it gets to that point. It's been known to happen that folks have landed in jail eventually for failing to pay a parking ticket and then not appearing in court.
But seriously, there is a very distinct difference between a civil and a criminal prosecution in the United States. One famous example would be O.J. Simpson who was not found criminally guilty but did lose the civil wrongful death lawsuit. You don't do jail time for a civil case.
[edited by: woop01 at 8:22 pm (utc) on Aug. 4, 2009]
However, your lack of knowledge of the American legal system and reluctance to read the article you were commenting on doesn't make the thread title incorrect.
Obviously a different case but a great example was a time I was being harassed by phone by a kid (I banned him from one of my sites for harassing users) in Houston while I was in San Antonio. The San Antonio police said I needed to call Houston police. The Houston police said I wasnít actually in Houston when I got the calls so it should be handled by San Antonio police. However, if I were to drive to Houston and get a call they could handle it. They finally suggested I get a police report from the San Antonio police and have them fax it and they might be able to do something. The San Antonio police refused to take a police report because the kid was making the calls from Houston.
From what Iíve heard, thatís typical of the kind of run around you get from authorities. They simply donít want to deal with it. New Jersey should be commended for actually stepping up and being willing to enforce the law. Itís just unfortunate that seeing a police task force do their job is out of the ordinary.
Seizure of assets and/or the person, by force where necessary, IS necessary to give civil proceedings "teeth". The civil courts are civil until their civility is sorely tested. Then, like criminal courts, civil courts have the power of incarceration when necessary to enforce their authority.