desreversti
join:2002-09-03
San Antonio, TX | I for one...
I for one am glad that Spamhaus is based in the UK as opposed to the US.  |
|
Plldwnyrpnts
join:2003-04-19
Chicago, IL | Ed Zachery! |
|
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| I can't believe a judge bought it....
I can't believe a judge bought into this crap.
I can't believe a judge thought a US court had the right to tell a private company who they could or could not list in their own database, which is provided by an opt-in to it's customers
I can't believe a judge thought any ruling by a US court would have any effect on a UK company
I can't believe I've wasted a second of my life commenting on a spammer.
--
AMD X2 4800+ @2700Mhz/ MSI K8N Neo 4 Platinum SLI/ 4x 1024Mb Corsair XMS PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 7800GTs SLI/ Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler |
|
phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to desreversti
Re: I for one...
In this case... I can't agree more. I am trying to find more details on what grounds the spammer sued... or if the court/judge was 'required' to rule in the spammer's favor SOLELY because SpamHaus didn't show up. Something tells me this spammer doesn't have a leg to stand on. |
|
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA
·Mediacom
1 edit | Default judgement
"A lawsuit filed in an Illinois court by David Linhardt (aka e360 Insight LLC) against The Spamhaus Project Ltd., a British-based organisation over which the Illinois court had no jurisdiction, went predictably to default judgement when Spamhaus did not accept U.S. jurisdiction and defend it."
I'm so glad to see that other countries don't give a shit about our ridiculous court system.
"The court barred Spamhaus from causing any e-mail sent by e360insight or Linhardt to be "blocked, delayed, altered, or interrupted in anyway" Spamhaus also has to publish an apology for that states that Linhardt and his company are not spammers."
WOW |
|
Raptor
Not a Dumptruck
join:2001-10-21
London, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
 ·Bell Sympatico
| reply to desreversti
Re: I for one...
Agreed.
What's the judge thinking anyway? The spam is in violation of UK law, so Spamhaus blocks incoming spam. Enough said. This must be the running joke at the Spamhaus office. I'm laughing, what a waste of court time.
Would not the new real problem be that this case now sets a precedent for any future cases that could potentially involve US based anti-spam companies (oxymoron?) 
--
....where's my fiber? |
|
AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß | Judge = smart like fox
By giving this moran some hope of a win via this default judgement, maybe he is trying to get the guy to go to the UK. Once in the UK, he could be arrested, I think. |
|
soccerguy
join:2004-06-28
Seattle, WA | reply to Anonymous
Re: Default judgement
A defendant can make a limited appearance for purposes of filing a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction without submitting to the jurisidiction of the court where the case is being heard. |
|
Raptor
Not a Dumptruck
join:2001-10-21
London, ON | reply to Anonymous
If i were Spamhaus PR dept, I'd schedule a big press conference (not that 360 deserves any attention at all), on the basis of an apology, but instead sum it up with a "Go $^%@ Yourself!"
--
....where's my fiber? |
|
phoneboy2
@shawcable.net | There ya go!
There ya go, more proof the US system works........NOT! |
|
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| reply to AnonProxy
Re: Judge = smart like fox
said by AnonProxy  :By giving this moran some hope of a win via this default judgement, maybe he is trying to get the guy to go to the UK. Once in the UK, he could be arrested, I think. I like the way you think!
--
What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter |
|
entropy1
Premium
join:2002-09-25 | reply to Raptor
Re: Default judgement
Heh. That would be awesome. |
|
anonpisser
@optonline.net | reply to Camelot One
Re: I can't believe a judge bought it....
What do you expect from Technology ignorant judges..?
Ingrates! |
|
menumorut
BE an American.
join:2005-07-04
Queens Village, NY
| reply to Anonymous
Re: Default judgement
said by Anonymous :I'm so glad to see that other countries don't give a shit about our ridiculous court system. WOW I also agree!But if you think ours is bad you should take a peak at some EU ones, .....mind blowing!!!
--
Give the world changes at a pace it can absorb. |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Fry the judge...
For wasting taxpayer money on an unenforceable case, and for confirming to the world that our system is completely STUPID. And fry this idiot spammer for being stupid enough to try to sue someone from another country in a US court.
The whole deal shows how dumb our government and legal system really is. Good job guys....
puritan |
|
soccerguy
join:2004-06-28
Seattle, WA
| reply to Camelot One
Re: I can't believe a judge bought it....
-The judge didn't necessarily buy into it. The UK company didn't appear; by default in such cases, the plaintiff gets what he/she asks for.
-US courts will indeed dictate to private companies if the actions of that company tortiously interfere with the rights of others or are defematory and hurt the other's business.
-US courts will exert their jurisdiction over foreign companies conducing business in the United States. The big question is whether or not the UK company was conducting business here by letting US persons and companies use their spam list.
Do I think the spammer is correct? Of course not. But one ignores the courts at their own peril. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to Anonymous
Re: Default judgement
said by Anonymous :"A lawsuit filed in an Illinois court by David Linhardt (aka e360 Insight LLC) against The Spamhaus Project Ltd., a British-based organisation over which the Illinois court had no jurisdiction, went predictably to default judgement when Spamhaus did not accept U.S. jurisdiction and defend it." I'm so glad to see that other countries don't give a shit about our ridiculous court system. Of course, other countries care. The US enforces court orders by other countries and foreign courts enforce US court orders. It is a quid pro quo arrangement. However, in this case, there are no US assets from Spamhaus in the US to actually seize to satisfy a judgement. A lawsuit win doesn't mean anything if there are no assets to seize. That is another whole legal proceeding to actually seize assets. And don't be so sure that the UK wouldn't assist if the plaintiff (e360 Insight) went to a UK court to get a judgement against Spamhaus assets. Of course it is expensive to do that and e360 Insight might not find it worthwhile to do so.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to AnonProxy
Re: Judge = smart like fox
said by AnonProxy :By giving this moran some hope of a win via this default judgement, maybe he is trying to get the guy to go to the UK. Once in the UK, he could be arrested, I think. The plaintiff wouldn't have to go to the UK to file a case in a UK court. All he has to do is hire a UK lawyer to do his bidding.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
Pvt_Canuck
@execulink.com
| reply to Raptor
Re: I for one...
As this is a civil suit, and Spamhaus is in the UK, the finding was probably summary. Did Spamhaus even bother to send a representative to the proceedings, because in a civil suit, if one party doesn't bother to show, the other one wins just for being there. The judge doesn't have any choice in the matter, it's procedure. |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| reply to soccerguy
Re: I can't believe a judge bought it....
said by soccerguy :-The judge didn't necessarily buy into it. The UK company didn't appear; by default in such cases, the plaintiff gets what he/she asks for. The UK Company.... enough said... Judge = Dolt
Even if the defendant does not show up, the plaintiff still has to prove the wrongdoing. You don't just get a default judgement without proving that the alleged defendant broke the law.
said by soccerguy :-US courts will exert their jurisdiction over foreign companies conducing business in the United States. The big question is whether or not the UK company was conducting business here by letting US persons and companies use their spam list. They are conducting business on the internet in the UK. They are not in the US. Just because it is available from here, does not mean that they are operating here.
said by soccerguy :Do I think the spammer is correct? Of course not. But one ignores the courts at their own peril. There is no peril to anyone or any company that is not legally bound to US law. They are abiding by UK law, where they are based from.
puritan |
|
