It looks like he's left NZ and doesn't mind burning his bridges to
get the story out...

[ begin Alan's e-mail ]

Date:         Thu, 8 Nov 2001 15:49:36 -0600
Sender: Spam Prevention Discussion List <SPA...@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Alan Brown <al...@DIGISTAR.COM>
Subject:      Spam, block: Telecom Corporation of NZ,
              spamming via a contractor - bravenewworld.co.nz

Telecom Corporation of NZ are the owners of the Xtra.co.nz domain, whose
marketing department brought legal action to have their servers removed
from ORBS as a spam source. As you can see, the entries were not without
reason.

The first hit, April 2001

http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=Pine.LNX.4.30.0104080430300.320...

The second hit, August 2001 - is attached below

it should be noted that the "STATEMENT TO ALL" which I posted in June
2001 was written by Telecom's lawyers and posted under duress - while
the judge was made aware that the statement contained falsehoods, I was
ordered to post it anyway, or be arrested and jailed until such time as
I was willing to post it.

As a result, I recommend that _all_ servers belonging to Telecom
Corporation of NZ and their support companies (braveneworld.co.nz)

The original injunction obtained by Telecom Corporation of NZ and Actrix
Networks Ltd was on the basis that the ORBS listings interfered with
those companies' contracual obligations to deliver mail for their
customers.

Yes, that's right, the ruling was essentially that receivers aren't
allowed to block incoming mail using blacklists.

The injunction was obtained in secret. The first knowledge I had of the
injunction's existance was when I was served with it by lawyers from
KPMG.co.nz, Palmerston North.

Furthermore: As supporting testimony, statements were made to the court
by kpmg.co.nz, Palmerston North about how unfair it was that their mail
was being blocked - from MY OWN mailservers[1]. Similar statements were
also made by Actrix networks. Their primary complaint was not being
listed by ORBS, but that I was blocking them from my OWN mailservers.

[1] KPMG Palmerston North sent several faxes to my company threatening
    legal action unless we stopped refusing their email.

As these companies have effectively set legal precedent in NZ that
receivers have to shut up and eat their spam, I strongly urge the full
blocking of the mailservers and companies involved.

Off topic: Actix makes a large song and dance about being a NZ company.
It came out in the court documents that they are majority owened by a
USA ISP. IMO they are basically defrauding their own customers about
their ownership...

I was unable to make any comment about this while in NZ without risking
jail time and seizure of all my computers. I am no longer in NZ.

YELLOW PAGES(R) is a registered trademark of Telecom Corporation of NZ.

tx.co.nz is registered to bravenewworld.co.nz and is routed via Telecom
Corporation of NZ's main competitor - Clear Communications. Neither
bravenewworld.co.nz or Clear have responded to previous complaints on
this matter.

[Biggus Snippus]

I know where he is. I'm trying to sell some computers so I can donate some
money to him to ressurect ORBS in his new location.

--
Want a custom-built PC designed by gamers, for gamers?
Visit http://kryptonite.pc-gamereview.com and browse.

I had no idea New Zealand had such a tyranical, oppressive government.
We Yanks tend to take free speech and property rights for granted.
Reading something like that is downright chilling. I would expect it
from China.  But New Zealand?

J.M.

On 09 Nov 2001 00:17:42 GMT, Joe Munger <js...@dfsdsssdfjk.invalid>
wrote:

  MAPS has gotten the same treatment. Alan's full of crap, he listed a
whole ISP in "inputs/outputs" just because he had a hair across his
ass. Whether any coercion was involved in the public statement he made
is irrelevant, because those IP addresses *were* listed by ORBS, and
they didn't match the published ORBS criteria for listing. Now he
comes up with a one spam example to justify his action these many
months later. Crapola.

             Steve Baker

We have such rights because we rejected England's repressive form of
government when we broke away so decisively in 1776. Our Bill of Rights
reflects in great part the fear the US Founders had of turning this
country into another England.

But other countries that originated from England's colonization
adventures neither sought nor obtained independence from England until
much later. Further, their independence came only gradually, as their
ties to England became looser and looser. Consequently, those countries
developed governments as repressive and authoritarian as the government
they originally knew.

In article <3BEB2075.B167E...@dfsdsssdfjk.invalid>,
        Joe Munger <js...@dfsdsssdfjk.invalid> writes:

Indeed.  But you may find this... interesting:

    http://www.DSLReports.com/shownews/12440

Even after reading must of the stuff surrounding it, I'm *still* not
sure exactly what's going on, but it does appear rather disturbing

Then there's the apparent (?) cozy relationship between the new
Administration in D.C. and Microsoft.  One *hopes* that's only a case
of ideological agreement, as opposed to something more ominous.

Regards,
Jim
--
Jim Seymour                          | "Living in an email account with lots
2...@cluestick.org                    |  of spam is like living in a community
Don't use nonpar...@pandora.orbl.org |  with trash in the streets,"
"and YES moron I am" - GNewrgray     |          - Gartner analyst Joyce Graff

The others consisted mainly of natives.  The American colonies' populaces
were mostly English, with a bit of contact with some "indians" (as if they
still believed they were in India).  The native populations of the others
could be dominated, repressed, made to wear funny clothes.  The Americans
(even the criminals, to a certain extent) came to America to breathe free,
and had some idea how to do it.  They knew how to talk to the enemies of
England, get together with them and kick England's ass.

--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 Spammers: Don't tread on me - your spam is not allowed at my place.
 Fee for processing UCE, UBE, SPAM: $1000 per item, plus collection.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Quoth 2...@cluestick.org (Jim Seymour) in <tunl6lrd5ct...@corp.supernews.com>:
|In article <3BEB2075.B167E...@dfsdsssdfjk.invalid>,
|       Joe Munger <js...@dfsdsssdfjk.invalid> writes:
|> I had no idea New Zealand had such a tyranical, oppressive government.
|> We Yanks tend to take free speech and property rights for granted.
|> Reading something like that is downright chilling. I would expect it
|> from China.  But New Zealand?
|
|Indeed.  But you may find this... interesting:
|
|    http://www.DSLReports.com/shownews/12440
|
|Even after reading must of the stuff surrounding it, I'm *still* not
|sure exactly what's going on, but it does appear rather disturbing
|
|Then there's the apparent (?) cozy relationship between the new
|Administration in D.C. and Microsoft.  One *hopes* that's only a case
|of ideological agreement, as opposed to something more ominous.

Check out Dave Winer's take on the subject at

<http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2823588,00.html?chkp...>

I vote for "something more ominous".

--
|I always wanted to be someone,|            Tom Betz, Generalist               |
|but now I think I should have | Want to send me email? FIRST, READ THIS PAGE: |
|been a wee bit more specific. | <http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/mailterms.shtml> |
| "Fuck NANAE." -- Paul Vixie  | YO! MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS HEAVILY SPAM-ARMORED! |

However, because the Bill of Rights is supposed to prevent our legislators
from turning this country into another Soviet Union, it's gradually being
superseded.

--
"I would have been happy to explain further, except you had by that
 point made it clear you would believe whatever you wanted to believe"
   -- Jamie McCarthy, <b613732a.0107031352.5d337...@posting.google.com>

 If we can please leave aside the "my country is better than your country"
for a little while.

 With all the cancellation flying around, I had to go into Google
to look at the original posting.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9sevr0%2436r%241%40news.panix.co...

 From the above posting there is something that Mr. Brown did not do
that resulted in his ass being kicked in.

 Unfortunately, I have not been able to find a copy of that court decision, but
I did find something of interest.

http://www.findlaw.co.nz/articles/default.asp?task=read&id=852&site=BU

 It appears that Mr. Brown is with holding some information.

 For those of you not familiar with the story.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3b1bffb1%241%40news.actrix.gen.n...

On a final note. Mr Brown claimed in the original message (nov.8/01) that
according to documents filed in the court proceedings Actrix "are majority owened
by a USA ISP."

 Strangely, the documents filed with the Government of New Zealand does not
confirm that claim.
 NZ COMPANIES OFFICE
http://www.companies.govt.nz/search/cad/dbssiten.main

------ copy ------
  2001 ANNUAL RETURN FOR
ACTRIX NETWORKS LIMITED(535561)

        Shareholders (as at incorporation or last annual return if any.)
        Number of shares   10,000
        Name                                                No. of Shares
    929116 - WEST 175 MEDIA (NZ) LIMITED                       6,000
     Suite 4a, Reid House, 114 Alexandra Street, Hamilton
    949229 - ANKOR LIMITED                                     4,000
            Level 1, 282 Wakefield Street, Wellington

 < big snip >

Are 25% or more of voting shares held by a person / body corporate ordinarily resident
        outside New Zealand? No
------- end copy -------

 Something is not right.

 Regards
 David Ramalho

Were those servers open relays?

Even cozier is the relationship between Microsoft and MGM/UA.

I understand that they are giving Bill Gates a white Persian Cat
and a Monacle and offering him a role in the next Bond Film.

--

FF

I don't know if the courts in New Zealand have the authority to
order a person to publish a specific public statement ostensibly
from _himself_.

But I suppose that if a person settles a lawsuit or an appeal
by  enterring into a consent decree in which that person agrees
to publish such a statement, as for example when the party winning
the suit agrees to forgive payment of some of the damages in ex-
change for such a statement then the maybe the court would act to
enforce the consent decree it approved.

Just pure speculation on my part.

--

FF

On 10 Nov 2001, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

The basic nature of courts--indeed--anybody is that they can do what ever they
want to.  Unless a higher authority tells them they may not.

If a court tells you to do something, you have three choices:

Do it.
Suffer the consequences of not doing it.
Appeal to a higher court (which might lead to recycling the questions, to
something worse, or to escape).

If you agree to do something, you have to do it, or start a new action
that might show you were under duress, that the action is not in the public
interest, or is forbidden by some higher authority.

And mine as well, actually.

In <9sguqe$lt...@news.panix.com>, on 11/09/2001
   at 04:04 PM, tb...@panix.com (Tom Betz) said:

I don't know whether there is something more ominous in DOJ felching
Bill Gates, but I don't take seriously most of what emerges from ZD.
As to the issue with the security flaw, the Feds had no power to force
him to withhold publication; rather than being frightened by their
power, I am frightened by their incometence.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
     Atid/2
     Team OS/2
     Team PL/I

Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action.  I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.

I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me.  Do not reply to
spamt...@library.lspace.org
-----------------------------------------------------------

In article <3bee7a80$1$fuzhry$mr2...@news.patriot.net>,
        "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:

The Feds had the power to have a Norwegian boy arrested for something
that isn't even illegal in Norway.

The combination of power and incompetence is the most frightening.
Everyone who has seen a Hipflood [1] knows it is trivial to send
messages over Usenet, yet CNN agreed to delay the interviews with
bin Laden because they could have secret hints.

[1] YADATROT

--
e...@selwerd.nl

This has great current relevance in the US.

Wouldn't you think the Muslim with TV would rather get his news from Al
Jazeera?  I'd guess that you, as a foreigner (to the US), have seen more
than one example of the stupid parochialness of the US (if it doesn't
happen here it doesn't happen).  Add ignorance to the power/incompetence
mix and you really have something scary (see my first comment).

In <3BECB1F2.684AE...@home.com>, on 11/10/2001
   at 04:50 AM, David Ramalho <earthsci...@home.com> said:

I didn't see anything like that.

Well, the only relevant thing I see there is that the judge increased
the penalty because of making a solicitor's letter public. The term
"Star Chamber" comes to mind.

Who owns the parent company?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
     Atid/2
     Team OS/2
     Team PL/I

Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action.  I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.

I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me.  Do not reply to
spamt...@library.lspace.org
-----------------------------------------------------------

In article <3BF69A69.91981...@mail.tds.net>,
        "brad.madison" <brad.madi...@mail.tds.net> writes:

I think a Muslim would like to have several independent sources of
information, just like most of us.

The US is bigger than the Netherlands, when we are pariochial, it is
worse. ;-)

Free information is a good medicine for ignorance, during paranoid
periods, I believe that governments like spam because it gives their
subjects an incentive to approve control of information flows.
Software to read e-books can put someone in jail and software to avoid
email filters stays legal.

--
e...@selwerd.nl

I'd just like to say that New Zealand does not have a tyranical, oppressive
government... and I think that the day-to-day freedom and rights are on a
world-class level... and I am not being forced to say this :)

Geoff

http://www.zfree.co.nz