4CHAN COMMUNITY SUPPORT LLC and LOLCOW, LLC, d/b/a KIWI FARMS, Plaintiffs, v. THE UK OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS, a/k/a OFCOM

[Sooty Soot]

>4chan and kiwifarms respond to OFCOM
View attachment 8351461

I mean, both of them are special forces.

 

['Ole Dente]

I don't want to speak down to the effort being made here because it's clearly a labor of love and effort, I'm still on page 12.....but I'm still so blown the fuck away that the court requires 40 pages of argumentation on why Americans in America doing legal things are not subject to foreign laws.

I DO understand why it's necessary but....Christ, it just blows me the fuck away.

 

[Alkor]

I am so jealous of the guy who got to write this.

 

[Kikemaster]

I think it would have been beneficial to add a point about the EU Digital Services Act (of which the UK's Online Safety Act is born) and how it already has active scrutiny from both the majority of the EU and the US. The EU DSA wasn't even draconian enough for the UK's liking, because as most EU regulations, the DSA is mostly recommendations and its outcomes are a platform receiving an "We are offended on behalf of XYZ" email.
If I recall correctly, the UK's version is a straight copy of the original DSA before Germany and Italy wanted to axe the "obligatory enforcement" part and the entire data collection/retention clause the UK's OSA is also made fun for.

More and more it seems to me that Brexit wasn't the UK going "We want out of the EU's totalitarianism" and more "We can do it better/harder/faster"

 

[teriyakiburns]

That's not really saying much. Greer is worse than third world pro se litigants. It's okay, but could have used a once-over at the very least. That's just my professional opinion.

As long as it's better than the output of Percy Tyrone beard, it's ok.

More and more it seems to me that Brexit wasn't the UK going "We want out of the EU's totalitarianism" and more "We can do it better/harder/faster"

This was always the concern amongst pro-brexit campaigners. We wanted a more orderly withdrawal, accompanied by constitutional reform that would limit the ability of the state to enact overweening and draconian policies such as this. You have to take the opportunities you're given though, which unfortunately meant temporarily () putting power in the hands of people that hate us.

 

[mindlessobserver]

The strongest argument is the improper service one. It would be very easy for the court to just seize on that and go with it because it would be very hard for OFCOM to argue they did use appropriate service and process channels. Their only defense to this is the claim that the Kiwifarms and 4chan are availing themselves of the UKs jurisdiction by virtue of being accessible from the UK so there is no need for them to bother with international service. as Kiwifarms and 4chan are under their jurisdiction.

So it really wouldn't solve the dispute at issue, and would just lead to more circular litigation. Because for one thing, I don't think OFCOM actually CAN affect international service through the hague convention. When doing enforcement they are not a government agency, they are a private corporation contracted to enforce on behalf of the government. They issue fines and enforcement decrees, they aren't going to "Sue" 4chan and Kiwifarms. They would have to go to an English Court, get their decrees turned into something cognizable under the Hague Convention and send that. And I don't think they will because it would be self defeating and would probably get tossed back by the US State Department anyway for the same reasons we are suing now.

If the judge actually wants to resolve this he should let things proceed in some manner, but I am not optimistic. I have a feeling this meatball is too spicy and the Judge will be okay with just tossing the case and making it a higher courts problem.

 

[AnOminous]

Edit: They think they can get around the Sovereign Immunity bullshit with the Commercial Activity Exception. I don't understand all of this, not a lawyer, but its well laid out. I think they got a shot at least.

Yes, that's probably the most likely exception. I don't have enough of an education in a fairly highly technical area of the law to know how likely it is to be received. I think this very well may go to appeal however it goes, since it will be dismissed with prejudice if the exception doesn't apply, and if the court rules it does apply, since it's an immunity case, the defendant will have an immediate right of appeal.

I wouldn't take it as a huge loss if we don't win this, since the ruling may very well be that Ofcom hasn't actually engaged in any tortious conduct in the United States yet, and that the issue will be ripe when and if they actually try to collect in a U.S. court.

I'll note that immunities like this (and FSIA specifically) are construed very broadly while exceptions to them are construed very narrowly. I could see a trial court being very reluctant to cause an international incident.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Yes, that's probably the most likely exception. I don't have enough of an education in a fairly highly technical area of the law to know how likely it is to be received. I think this very well may go to appeal however it goes, since it will be dismissed with prejudice if the exception doesn't apply, and if the court rules it does apply, since it's an immunity case, the defendant will have an immediate right of appeal.

I wouldn't take it as a huge loss if we don't win this, since the ruling may very well be that Ofcom hasn't actually engaged in any tortious conduct in the United States yet, and that the issue will be ripe when and if they actually try to collect in a U.S. court.

I'll note that immunities like this (and FSIA specifically) are construed very broadly while exceptions to them are construed very narrowly. I could see a trial court being very reluctant to cause an international incident.

Oddly enough despite not being a lawyer myself international law is something I've studied pretty extensively. The case is a quagmire for a variety of reasons. To start off with, usually in a dispute "between states" the parties are actually "the states".

The problem is so many of the rules governing interstate relations at the global level were laid down at the turn of the 20th century with very minimal updating in the century since. At that time there was no such thing as a global multinational corporation for example. Standard Oil was big in America, but they weren't setting up shop in the UK next to BP or in the Netherlands next to Royal Dutch Shell. If there was any competition at all, it was over who got control of the oil well. Not who gets to sell in various countries. So if Standard Oil (ExxonMobil and Esso now) had an issue with a foreign state, i.e, the British Army stole their Oil well in Persia and gsve it to BP, the dispute is clear. Its not between Standard Oil and BP. Its between Standard Oil and His Majesties Government. So procedures were hammered out to address this.

The problem today is corporations now avail themselves of multiple jurisdictions. Drive down the carriageway in the UK and you dont just have British Petroleum as your potential options, you now have Eastern Standard Oil(Esso) and Royal Dutch Shell too! For that matter, BP also has stores in the USA as well. And let's not get started on the nightmare Venezuelas Citgo has caused to international business law. Now these companies avail themselves of multiple jurisdictions, and create separate but owned corporations within various countries that expose them to a rats nest of differing legal frameworks.

A rats nest that has been deliberately ignored. Which is why when Brazil decided that Elon Musk was bad, X had to completely close all their offices in Brazil and stop support. The only way to avoid liability was to cut off the entire country. Even though X is an American company operating in America. Worse, countries like the UK aren't "seizing the Oil wells" with their army anymore. They are using contracted corporations like OFCOM that function in a similar capacity to the Dutch east India company or the British Raj. Ostensibly PART of the Government, in that the government owns them and appoints the board, but otherwise independent.

International Law is not set up too address this problem. If the American Ambassador went to Kier Starmer and demanded he knock this bullshit off, Starmer can say with a straight face he has no authority to do so. While the British government appoints OFCOMs board and sets its legal purpose, it also does not exercise direct control over its decision making and enforcement either. It would be better to think of OFCOM not as a government agency but rather a Privateer, holding a letter of marque and reprisal. But the waters muddled further by nature of the fact the UK hasn't legally done this even if they have effectively done this.

Because the treaties have not been updated. We are essentially looking at an entire centuries worth of loop hole finding and legal gamesmanship in this case.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Yes, that's probably the most likely exception. I don't have enough of an education in a fairly highly technical area of the law to know how likely it is to be received. I think this very well may go to appeal however it goes, since it will be dismissed with prejudice if the exception doesn't apply, and if the court rules it does apply, since it's an immunity case, the defendant will have an immediate right of appeal.

I wouldn't take it as a huge loss if we don't win this, since the ruling may very well be that Ofcom hasn't actually engaged in any tortious conduct in the United States yet, and that the issue will be ripe when and if they actually try to collect in a U.S. court.

I'll note that immunities like this (and FSIA specifically) are construed very broadly while exceptions to them are construed very narrowly. I could see a trial court being very reluctant to cause an international incident.

I can see them being reluctant. Frankly i think both arguments are strong at this point. Both sides have competent representation. It will be up to the judge honestly and which argument he likes the most.

I'll admit, I don't have high hopes with this guy. He looks like a pencil pusher. But he could surprise us all.

 

[mindlessobserver]

I'll admit, I don't have high hopes with this guy. He looks like a pencil pusher. But he could surprise us all.

Its the DC circuit. The one thing we can count on is the DC circuit thinks its very, very, important. More important then any other circuit. Since this is an international case, it could have been brought in any Federal Circuit, but the priority would have been the 4th circuit for Lolcow or the 3rd circuit for 4chan.

Choosing the DC circuit for this one may end up being inspired. Out of all the Federal Circuits, the DC circuit is the one best set up for international disputes, and with (in theory at least) the most technically minded judges and magistrates.

Also the Brits are big on social standing. I bet they were willing to take a summons from the District of Columbia more seriously then the District Court for Southern West Virginia. Petty shit like that is important, especially in Bongland.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Its the DC circuit. The one thing we can count on is the DC circuit thinks its very, very, important. More important then any other circuit. Since this is an international case, it could have been brought in any Federal Circuit, but the priority would have been the 4th circuit for Lolcow or the 3rd circuit for 4chan.

Choosing the DC circuit for this one may end up being inspired. Out of all the Federal Circuits, the DC circuit is the one best set up for international disputes, and with (in theory at least) the most technically minded judges and magistrates.

Also the Brits are big on social standing. I bet they were willing to take a summons from the District of Columbia more seriously then the District Court for Southern West Virginia. Petty shit like that is important, especially in Bongland.

Personally i would have gone for West Virginia, because you can count on those judges being based more often than not, but i see the point in the prestige and knowledge aspect. Hopefully the choice of venue was worth it.

 

[AnOminous]

I don't want to speak down to the effort being made here because it's clearly a labor of love and effort, I'm still on page 12.....but I'm still so blown the fuck away that the court requires 40 pages of argumentation on why Americans in America doing legal things are not subject to foreign laws.

Because it's a case of first impression and we (4chan and the Farms) are asking for new law to be created, since there is no case directly on point as to whether activities like this by quasi-governmental bodies like Ofcom waive sovereign immunity.

This could have broad ramifications for international relations and a court is not going to want to take that step lightly.

These cucks have to be stopped, and the only way to do that is to punish and humiliate them for it. As a revenue raising maneuver, this is already a catastrophe and has caused the United Cuckdom a $41 billion trade deal. Americans need to bring the pain to these uppity little martinets.

That's not really saying much. Greer is worse than third world pro se litigants. It's okay, but could have used a once-over at the very least. That's just my professional opinion.

Spoiler: sperging about minutiae

Solos are always going to have this problem. He has an actual practice and other cases, and probably not a large staff, and a complex argument to make. He isn't some law firm that takes up an entire floor of a skyscraper with a team of paralegals and legal secretaries to scour every single line for minor typographical errors and make sure fonts match up.

Even shit like Shepard's Briefcheck (something to check and fix citations) is ridiculously expensive so you're usually going to do that stuff yourself. I'll note that in the Vic case, every single filing by lawyers on three sides, in medium-sized firms, was absolutely atrocious as to form even though they did have a staff to do this stuff. The exception was the "strip mall lawyer" Sam Johnson, who actually caught the technicality that nuked the case from orbit while charging something like a third of what all the other lawyers charged.

In short, it just isn't really economically feasible to prioritize form over legal correctness. At that point, the dude doing a job for free is going to be shelling out major money of his own instead of just volunteering his time. The priority is that the legal argument be valid, or at least potentially valid. Stuff like format and style sometimes has to be triaged.

Optimally, you'd have a paralegal and a legal secretary to smooth over the blemishes, or the time to do it yourself, but if you do it yourself, you're costing yourself your hourly rate in other cases, and if you hire two other people to do it, that's still potentially hundreds of dollars an hour.

tl;dr I'd find these criticisms more apposite if we were paying BigLaw prices for a senior partner, a half-dozen associates, a dozen paralegals, and a team of legal secretaries.

I'll admit, I don't have high hopes with this guy. He looks like a pencil pusher. But he could surprise us all.

Obama appointed, well regarded. However, this is a case with plaintiffs who are considered scumbags on our best days, and Trump has actually taken a specific position that aligns with ours. I hope he can set aside any political bias he may have.

I think the most likely outcome is kicking it upstairs by finding FSIA immunity applies, but however it goes, it's going to the D.C. Circuit unless the losing party, whoever it is, abandons the litigation.

After watching Russell Greer for so long, I was awestruck by the use of well-sourced and correctly formatted citations.

As someone who saw Tyrone Beard (with a firm behind him) file bloated filings and shitty Tables of Authorities that changed font in the middle, sometimes used small caps and sometimes just plain caps, and otherwise looked like trash, this is quite good in comparison.

Also, now having read the entire document, I personally think the errors in it are incredibly trivial, and don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Because it's a case of first impression and we (4chan and the Farms) are asking for new law to be created, since there is no case directly on point as to whether activities like this by quasi-governmental bodies like Ofcom waive sovereign immunity.

I feel Byrne and Coleman really should be banging harder on this. The Quasi Government Agency (Quango) is a relatively new phenomenon in the British Government with most of them set up under Blair. The entire discussion around them is about the "Arms Length" doctrine, in that the Government may supervise them but does not control them. Keeping them at "Arms Length".

How long an Arm must be kept before the Quango stops being a sovereign entity though? By the logic OFCOM is using, the BBC is a sovereign entity too, but its being sued by the sitting US President right now in Florida for defamation.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Obama appointed, well regarded. However, this is a case with plaintiffs who are considered scumbags on our best days, and Trump has actually taken a specific position that aligns with ours. I hope he can set aside any political bias he may have.

I think the most likely outcome is kicking it upstairs by finding FSIA immunity applies, but however it goes, it's going to the D.C. Circuit unless the losing party, whoever it is, abandons the litigation.

Now you're really making my heart sink. That is multiple red flags.

 

[Just_A_guy]

I feel Byrne and Coleman really should be banging harder on this. The Quasi Government Agency (Quango) is a relatively new phenomenon in the British Government with most of them set up under Blair. The entire discussion around them is about the "Arms Length" doctrine, in that the Government may supervise them but does not control them. Keeping them at "Arms Length".

How long an Arm must be kept before the Quango stops being a sovereign entity though? By the logic OFCOM is using, the BBC is a sovereign entity too, but its being sued by the sitting US President right now in Florida for defamation.

As an American with even a vague idea of the history of the CIA (hiring literal SS officers during the cold war) I know how bad it can get when you have unaccountable agencies that are technically accountable to the government.

The Gehlen organization fanned the flames of the cold war to justify their existence and created the groundwork for the privacy violating nightmare we have today with the alphabet agencies.
No good can ever come from allowing a quasi government agency to exist without strict oversight and control of some degree.

 

['Ole Dente]

Because it's a case of first impression and we (4chan and the Farms) are asking for new law to be created, since there is no case directly on point as to whether activities like this by quasi-governmental bodies like Ofcom waive sovereign immunity.

This could have broad ramifications for international relations and a court is not going to want to take that step lightly.

These cucks have to be stopped, and the only way to do that is to punish and humiliate them for it. As a revenue raising maneuver, this is already a catastrophe and has caused the United Cuckdom a $41 billion trade deal. Americans need to bring the pain to these uppity little martinets.

I know but it just drives me fucking nuts that we live in a world where it's even necessary to look beyond the previous filings and have a judge say "lol fucking no. Stay firmly within your gay homo lane, next case."

I know it's necessary, I know why, I know it's justified but I just want someone to respond to these faggots in the same way I respond to the dumbest fucking questions imaginable.

 

[mindlessobserver]

I know but it just drives me fucking nuts that we live in a world where it's even necessary to look beyond the previous filings and have a judge say "lol fucking no. Stay firmly within your gay homo lane, next case."

I know it's necessary, I know why, I know it's justified but I just want someone to respond to these faggots in the same way I respond to the dumbest fucking questions imaginable.

Its a case of first impression. I don't think the District Court is going to go along with it because the district court is all about precedent, not making new law except in some very narrow circumstances. This is essentially above the District Judges paygrade and the decision he makes will be less about what the law says (because the law say's nothing) and more about just what sort of precedent he wants to write and how it will be remembered. A first impression case, especially one of this scale and scope comes very rarely. The fact that its dealing with international law and the concept of sovereign immunity makes it even more spicy.

Will really depend on the judge. The cowards way out is to exit stage right with the service option. "Improper service, use the Hague Convention next time OFCOM, case dismissed as unripe since nothing has legally happened in America yet."

The spicy option is to actually make a ruling on the Sovereign Immunity question. Either for or against the plaintiffs. That is the question that immediately goes up the chain, and would be a way for the district judge to make his legal bones...if he's willing to make a ruling on it. For or against it being rather immaterial to that. But if he were to do so, my money is on upholding sovreign immunity because that is the easiest case to make even if it may IMO be the wrong one. But my reasons for thinking that OFCOM is not immune are colored by the fact that I think they need to be given the same treatment the English got on the march back to Boston from Concord, so I am biased.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Didn't see this posted



New deadlines, new lawyer (technically not new as he has worked with the complaint, but this is his formal appearance)

 

[AnOminous]

Now you're really making my heart sink. That is multiple red flags.

Going to the D.C. Circuit is not a bad thing for a case like this. I just wouldn't expect to win at the trial court level.

 

[George Lucas]

This filing reads a little half-baked to me. Lots of little citation problems, some typos, quotations aren't cleaned up appropriately, etc. And the arguments could have been tightened up. Some of the forcefulness is lost due to these problems. I wouldn't be super happy if I were paying at normal rates for this work, but I don't know how exactly the representation is set up.

I hope the judge is just totally put off by the UK's conduct and trying to figure out how to bring the hammer down. Even a terrible filing (not to say this is terrible, it just could have been worked on some more) will win if the judge is in agreement with the party's position and can scrounge up enough law to get them across the line. A well written document just makes that job way easier for the judge.

Typos are actually intentional. It gives lawyers some leeway to make ‘corrections’ and rephrasing later if the case isn’t going the way they were hoping for.