I was just looking at this and wondered what difference it would make?


Afterall, if you look at the list of companies at the bottom of the article, there's the Brit company mentioned and the one in Latvia.

So, unless these companies have a business presence in the US, what does it matter what the Nevada court says?

Surely, they can just put two fingers up and say "Bollocks"? If there are no US based assets to freeze?

yes, I'd concede that there may be some parallel law in place whereby the US/Nevada court could apply through the US Embassy in London to have asset's frozen - but the one in Latvia or any other companies/locations that don't have a business presence in the US, surely could target inboxes in the US (or UK or Wherever) and do it with impunity?

regards

John

"yes, I'd concede that there may be some parallel law in place whereby the US/Nevada court could apply through the US Embassy in London to have asset's frozen - but the one in Latvia or any other companies/locations that don't have a business presence in the US, surely could target inboxes in the US (or UK or Wherever) and do it with impunity?"

The prosecutor in Nevada can apply to the governments in Latvia and Britain to extradite the people involved to Nevada provided that Latvia has an extradition treaty with the U.S. I know Britain has an extradition treaty with the U.S. Extradition is not easy but it sometimes can be done.

"The US District Court in the District of Nevada has issued a temporary restraining order against the defendants prohibiting them from engaging in "deceptive practices"."

A temporary restraining order is issued by a Judge at the beginning of the case to immediately stop illegal activities while the trial continues toward a final verdict. The restraining order may have little effect on British and Latvian residents but it may make it impossible for these defendants to collect payments from American victims.

An example of a temporary restraining order that usually works is in a divorce case an abusive husband might be ordered to have no contact with his wife.


------------------------------
Steve Stites

"yes, I'd concede that there may be some parallel law in place whereby the US/Nevada court could apply through the US Embassy in London to have asset's frozen - but the one in Latvia or any other companies/locations that don't have a business presence in the US, surely could target inboxes in the US (or UK or Wherever) and do it with impunity?"

The prosecutor in Nevada can apply to the governments in Latvia and Britain to extradite the people involved to Nevada provided that Latvia has an extradition treaty with the U.S. I know Britain has an extradition treaty with the U.S. Extradition is not easy but it sometimes can be done.

It just seems a little arrogant of the nevada courts to think (or that's how I read it) that they can issue all sorts of legal orders i.e. cease and desist etc etc, and presume that these will be complied with by people outside the US.


"The US District Court in the District of Nevada has issued a temporary restraining order against the defendants prohibiting them from engaging in "deceptive practices"."

A temporary restraining order is issued by a Judge at the beginning of the case to immediately stop illegal activities while the trial continues toward a final verdict. The restraining order may have little effect on British and Latvian residents but it may make it impossible for these defendants to collect payments from American victims.

An example of a temporary restraining order that usually works is in a divorce case an abusive husband might be ordered to have no contact with his wife.


This is part of what I don't understand, because any criminal "worth his salt" operating in an international way, or even just the "scam artist's", if they can do, they're certainly gonna give the Nevada courts (or any other states for that matter), "the bird"! Which as we all appreciate makes the Nevada courts sound "vaguely stupid" in making such grandiose pronouncements.

Just because the UK and US have had a good "working relationship" for 40 or 50 years, it doesn't mean that the US authorities can say jump and everyone else says "how high"???

I suppose what I mean is that they make such announcement just in context of countries that they can "work with", but "keep schtum!" about other places, because as logic dictates, new scams would just "pop up" from new locations that don't have such agreements with the US!

Hum? definitely curious. I wonder what the point of that particular announcement was??
regards

John

"I suppose what I mean is that they make such announcement just in context of countries that they can "work with", but "keep schtum!" about other places, because as logic dictates, new scams would just "pop up" from new locations that don't have such agreements with the US!"

The U.S. courts have issued penalties against countries where they have no chance of enforcing them. Cuba, Libya, and Iran come to mind. British courts also issued penalties against Libya in the Lockerbie case and eventually Britain, the U.S., and the U.N. managed to force Libya to pay up.

------------------------------
Steve Stites

Yup, I can see what you're driving at, but that's slightly "more" serious ??? i.e. terrorism related. The sort of thing that I was thinking of is pretty low level in comparison i.e. phishing and the unsolicited p0rn spams.

Both very annoying, but somewhat petty. Plus, I should have thought that although the Nevada court is well intentioned, if it was up against individuals or small groups with the requisite "technical savvy", in say central or south America or maybe Africa or even somewhere that they'd likely have even less influence, Oh I don't know, say China - that's what I'm saying.

That there would be little point in even attempting to pursue the offenders. And rather than even bringing that particular nation/location into the equation (is that a double or triple negative or something???) and risking making a "heavy" institution such as a court of law seem rather foolish, I'd have thought that they would have been better served addressing the problem via the State Department and all that diplomacy/crafty business shit that the likes of them get up to.

regards

John.

p.s. IRO the Lockerbie thing, I understand that half the time the US media can be rather "blinkered" when it comes to international stuff, if you had/have access to this you'd have to read the "special report" about Lockerbie (sorry I don't have my copy to reference from any longer). They present a very convincing case as to why Libya was a convenient scapegoat, whose purposes where suited when it came to an admission of guilt - plus they explained the "who and why" of an much more believable likely candidate, and quite a few excellent reasons why the whole case as presented to the UK/US was probably bollocks and how it all "went down".

Just to fill in though, as Private Eye is a satirical fortnightly mag, that does a pretty good job of poking fun at the various "authorities" - Yes, they've got stuff wrong in the past (and paid the price in court), but they've also been responsible for exposing some quite heavy stuff!

I'll put a brick through their windows if you want.

Who wants free computers?

"I'll put a brick through their windows if you want."

Whose Windows?

There is a comic strip here in America called "Opus" starring Opus the penguin. In today's Washington Post Opus is putting the finishing touch on a book he wrote called "Guide to Computers for Idiots and Penguins" which has taken Opus a year to write. Opus reaches for the Save key and the computer crashes, losing everything. Opus throws a tantrum, throws his computer through the window, and squashes the cat below. A little boy looks up at the shattered window and asks, "Is that why they call it Windows?"


-----------------------
Steve Stites