At 16:09 28/03/03 -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
In the UK the favorite dictum the courts like to repeat is
that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. I think you are
incorrect here as to the claim of right applicability,
that would be if you thought you owned the good in question.
The "claim of right" defence to larceny and related crimes is an exception
to the "ignorantia juris quod quisque scire tenetur non excusat" maxim.
It is unlikely this defense would be available if a letter
was sent stating that 1) the listing is disagreed with on
[specified] grounds and 2) any demands for payment for
de-listing will be considered to be extortion demands.
The person sending the letter can consider it whatever they like - it
doesn't change how a court will view it. The only relevant mental state is
that of the defendant.
As I previously indicated, the behaviour impugned is not clearly criminal.
That is not the same as saying it's clearly legal, or even as saying that
it's clearly not criminal. To reach such a conclusion would require
spending more time than I currently have at my disposal.
--
Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU
asrg(_at_)troy(_dot_)rollo(_dot_)name Executive Director,
iCAUCE
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg