There's an interesting anomaly in the article in the Age
(http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/19/1082357111573.html) According
to that report, Rafferty says  " ... had a right to conduct business without
interference from competitors and would seek to have Federal Court
injunctions lifted."

I thought that it was complaints from consumers and two federal regulatory
authorities that had precipitated the "intereference" of which he complains.
That's analogous to a criminal complaining that the police interfere with
his right to sell drugs.

In my experience, being in business is a contimual process of responding to
"interference from competitors".  Since when has it been a right to have no
competitors, as inferred by Rafferty's statement?

Ron Stark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Rowe [mailto:josh§email.nu] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 7:33 AM
> To: dns§dotau.org
> Subject: [DNS] Scammer says court defeat temporary setback 
> (Chesley Rafferty)
> 
> Scammer says court defeat temporary setback
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3561426
> 
> June date for Nominet legal fight
> http://www.vnunet.com/News/1154488
> 
> DNA to test federal court judgement
> http://www.arnnet.com.au/index.php?id=1924930834&fp=16&fpid=0
> 
> Domain name seller appeals injunction
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/19/1082357111573.html
> 
> Chesley Rafferty + Bradley Norrish, etc
> http://whatsinaname.com.au/slammers/
> 
> 
> Josh
> --
> http://josh.id.au/
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/ 
> Please do not retransmit articles on this list without 
> permission of the author, further information at the above URL.
>