problem solved.

The fact that a person regarded by many as a troll usses the same mailing address amounts to little, imo

…Though it should be noted, the person claiming to have swayed Kazaa to block Aussie users is using the same email address back Nov-05: http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16960&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=25

So, while anonymous – there is still a shade of ‘possibility’ to the validity of the sender….

Interesting idea there – because if it’s not Itai, then it’s most likely Nikki Hemming and she did an excellent job showing the world who she thinks the anon poster is.

As the email was sent to Jon via gmail, I’ve tested through my own account and gmail completely masks the ip of the sender – so you cant even do a tracert on the sender’s ip to at least verify it’s from Israel

_-Jile-_

i am from israel.

i am trying to sue sharman.

*****

don’t you all se? it doesn’t matter who is who, or who says who is whom. we are all anonymous here. that’s the point. anyone can say anything and claim to be anyone.

i wish you all would stop arguing about itai. he is fictitious as far as anything “itai” posts here or elsewhere. there is no proof this itai is who he says he is, or that any of the claims he makes are true or false.

just forget it and move on. itai is a troll.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say in your posting, but it is a fundamental fact of civil law that the person claiming a loss cannot be instrumental in that loss. In identifying himself, this self styled martyr has lost all rights to claim defamation against Sharman.

As for the grudge, most certainly not. I am a realist, and whilst nothing would please me more than to find myself in agreement that this guy has saved the day, it would be an exercise in self delusion. But that is just my opinion.

Perhaps it is the fact that I have an opinion that troubles you so greatly, or is it the fact that my opinion is not exactly what you want to hear? But if you shout people down without checking out the legal basics, how can you dismiss my concerns as being motivated by a grudge?

If this person wants to help Jon, then it is a simple matter for him to file an affidavit and have that attested both in his own country and in Canada. But I wouldn’t recommend that you hold your breath waiting for him to do so

Another Walter Mitty, I’m sorry to say. And I’m as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours.

Lesham suggested that the whole idea of fiiltering was in fact his, whereas nationality based filtering has already been employed (eg most streaming radio stations, etc).

We are in agreement that Lesham would have no immunity from being sued in his own country or a judgement obtained in another being reciprocated in his own country.

But the focus is Jon, and freedom of speech, not prejudice

The fact that they have not identified him by name does not make any difference in my mind. Everyone understood who Sharman talked about when naming him “screw loose”, just read the remarks of Slyckers regarding the screw loose remark and you can see that they understood very well.

It seems you have a grudge, get over it.

Sharman sued Jon correctly in Canada because he is Canadian and lives there, that kind of logic does not apply to Itai (if he indeed lives in Israel) and it’s hard to believe that the court would accept jurisdiction in Itai’s case.
If they want to sue him, they would probably need to do that in Israel.

That said, I agree that the focus should be the freedom of speech, the “Itai affair” is an interesting story within the bigger one. Don’t let your obvious dislike for that guy to miss the entire story.

The idea of filtering was first put to Sharman by the Australian courts, not by this preposterous individual. I dispute your assertion that he “knows his way around the law books” given his ridiculous presumption that he is immune from being sued because he lives in Israel.

Of course anyone can sue anyone else in another jurisdiction, either directly or via a local agent, that’s how the Australian firm Sharman Networks are suing Jon in Canada. It happens all the time.

This character from Tel Aviv (who interestingly uses a gmail account and not his office email address) has stopped at nothing to get his name dotted around the internet, and I would suggest that his latest effort to draw attention to himself amounts to nothing more than that.

It seems to me that the crux of this matter is more a question of the (allegedly) defamatory information being posted up at P2Pnet than the actual contents. I won’t risk any assertions that could themselves be libellous, so this is merely conjecture: It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Sharman wish to be portrayed as victims of the P2P movement and therefore distance themselves in the eyes of the courts.

But allowing this distractive clown Lesham to assume some sort of martyr or hero status is a dangerous indulgence, for it offers false confidence.

If he were the lawyer he claims to be (and that is subject to doubt) and as confident of his standing in this matter as he asserts (which is false confidence), then it would be perfectly easy for him to swear affidavits to the effect that he was responsible for this whole mess (which would be admissable in a Canadian court) and thus settle the matter as far as Jon is concerned.

But I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting.

Better to remain focussed on the real issues here, those of journalists’ (bloggers) rights to freedom of expression and the uncensored reproduction of contributor’s comments.

Can’t be much of a lawyer if he’s never heard of the internatial judicial process, where one staate will allow a judgement made in another state to be enforced as a summary case

The guy’s a loony. Look at his postings at Slyck uunder the name Volt and also as W Mitty.

As such, surely it shouldn’t have taken him so very long to make this remarkable decision to disclose his identity. After all, Jon has (very commendably) made it perfectly clear that the identity of the poster in question would never otherwise be disclosed.

Any finding against this individual within one jurisdiction would certainly equate to a compelling case against him within his own jurisdiction. His failure to acknowledge that, his complete ignorance of litigative recipricosity and the international judicial process combined with his amazing posting history as “volt” over at Slyck hardly suggest that he is knowledgable. To be perfectly frank, I found some of his postings rather disturbing, but make your own mind up.
http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16960&start=50&sid=fc2b67d69a2f6fab2654c4c165664dab
and
http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=234676&highlight=#234676

The fact that Kazaa/Sherman may have maligned “volt” aka Itai Lesham is a total non starter, I’m afraid, as they have not identified him by name. If he were to suffer any damages, it would only have been as a consequence of his subsequent actions – therefore self inflicted.

And as any first year law student will tell you, that the claimant is required to mitigate, not be the author of, his own losses.

Of course I could be completely wrong, and I freely accept that my opinions are based on conjecture. It is hard not to be prejudiced when a person repeatedly makes such a spectacle of himself in public.

I have nothing to gain if I am right, and as this is an anonymous contribution, I also have nothing to lose either. Mr Lisham, on the other hand, certainly craves publicity and also certainly stands to gain notoriety from his apparent matrydom. If anyone takes him at face value, that is.

But as the Slyck posting history will confirm, Lisham has a certain reputation for making claims involving Kazaa/Shaman that he can’t substantiate. He is a wlter mitty character in more than one sense of the word. I really don’t think it would take too much effort on the part of Sharman’s lawyers to thoroughly discredit this guy.

Therefore, it is my opinion that it would be extremely unwise to place any confidence in anything this man says,. No, I don’t know him. But I can and certainly have formed a less than favourable opinion of him.

But as the decision to exercise caution already appears to have been taken, my words are largely unnecessary.

As to Nikki, Mark and Kev and the rest must be giving her shit for opening this can of worms.