3 ms·

What are you talking about? It was a lawsuit filed in US District Court for the District of Nevada under state and federal laws. There is no international court

What are you talking about? It was a lawsuit filed in US District Court for the District of Nevada under state and federal laws. There is no international court with jurisdiction over such a suit. http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Second%20Amended%20Order%20Granting%20Ex%20Parte%20Application%20for%20a%20TRO.pdf http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Second%20Amended%20Order...

anonbanker 12y ago
So you're stating that the two Pro Hac Vice applications were just pointless pieces of paper? It was filed in accordance with state and federal law, but you'll pay attention to the fact that the notice was served in three countries, as well as via the website. You should also notice that they had the individual registrars (in other countries) execute their process. Why would those non-state parties even agree to act on the process if there was no obligation for them to do so?
- nknighthb 12y ago
  None of that indicates an international court. Attorneys in the US are licensed to practice per-state. Pro Hac Vice petitions are necessary whenever they seek to appear in a case outside the state(s) they are licensed in. In this case, two California attorneys were appearing in court in Nevada. There is nothing "international" about that. Parties to a lawsuit, no matter where they are, have an obligation to respond under US law. If they never want to travel to or do business in the US or any other country whose courts will enforce US judgements (there are many that will), they are, of course, free to ignore the summons and/or orders (unless ICAAN says otherwise, in case of the registries). Note also that the orders are signed by Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nevada. This is a US court. I have no idea why you think otherwise. There is nothing to indicate otherwise.

anonbanker 12y ago

So you're stating that the two Pro Hac Vice applications were just pointless pieces of paper? It was filed in accordance with state and federal law, but you'll pay attention to the fact that the notice was served in three countries, as well as via the website. You should also notice that they had the individual registrars (in other countries) execute their process. Why would those non-state parties even agree to act on the process if there was no obligation for them to do so?

nknighthb 12y ago
None of that indicates an international court. Attorneys in the US are licensed to practice per-state. Pro Hac Vice petitions are necessary whenever they seek to appear in a case outside the state(s) they are licensed in. In this case, two California attorneys were appearing in court in Nevada. There is nothing "international" about that. Parties to a lawsuit, no matter where they are, have an obligation to respond under US law. If they never want to travel to or do business in the US or any other country whose courts will enforce US judgements (there are many that will), they are, of course, free to ignore the summons and/or orders (unless ICAAN says otherwise, in case of the registries). Note also that the orders are signed by Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nevada. This is a US court. I have no idea why you think otherwise. There is nothing to indicate otherwise.