dslreports logo
 story category
The Spam Worm Turns For e360Insight
Spamhaus opponent faces new problems
Last year an Illinois court ruled that anti-spam group Spamhaus had to pay $11,715,000 in damages to spammer e360insight and e360insight's David Linhardt for "incorrectly" blacklisting them as spammers. The reward came because Spamhaus didn't bother to defend themselves in a ridiculous fight in Illinois, since they reside in the UK where spam is illegal. The spammers then tried to have Spamhaus's domain records pulled, but to no avail. e360insight, who won that case on the premise that they weren't spammers, is now being sued for spamming in California.
view:
topics flat nest 
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

moonpuppy (banned)

Member

May or may not impact the case.....

.....since Spamhaus did not even respond to the first complaint and lost by default.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

Re: May or may not impact the case.....

though they didnt really loose since the court ruling cant be applied to them since they arent in the US nore do they have US outlets. where as a multinational corp can have its locals hit by the local laws.

supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL

supergirl to moonpuppy

Member

to moonpuppy
Spamhaus did respond to the suit then never showed-up in court. Stupid to respond to the lawsuit the not show-up then defend yourself. If they wouldn't have responded, the lawsuit would've been dismissed probably.
claudeo
join:2000-02-23
Redmond, WA

claudeo

Member

Re: May or may not impact the case.....

said by supergirl:

Spamhaus did respond to the suit then never showed-up in court. Stupid to respond to the lawsuit the not show-up then defend yourself. If they wouldn't have responded, the lawsuit would've been dismissed probably.
By that same logic is someone decides, just for kicks, to sue you in the Fiji Islands or in Indonesia and you don't show up in court you lost the case and you have to pay.

supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL

supergirl

Member

Re: May or may not impact the case.....

No, they responded to the complaint in writing to the court then never defended themsleves.

Thaler
Premium Member
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA

Thaler to supergirl

Premium Member

to supergirl
said by supergirl:

Spamhaus did respond to the suit then never showed-up in court. Stupid to respond to the lawsuit the not show-up then defend yourself. If they wouldn't have responded, the lawsuit would've been dismissed probably.
Because the lawsuit and charges against them were a farce? If someone sued you for civil monies right now in Germany, would you fly over to defend it? Or just let it happen and laugh, simply because they have no collection avenues to take?

I probably could sue all the UK-based-&-operated businesses I want to from here in California. What that would net me, is just legal fees, however. California doesn't really have a debt collection system for overseas civil court legal charges.

DrModem
Trust Your Doctor
Premium Member
join:2006-10-19
USA

DrModem

Premium Member

erm

So the spammers claimed they werent spammers and got away with it +$11 million? good grief.

thrillhaus
Premium Member
join:2003-12-26
Long Beach, CA

thrillhaus

Premium Member

Re: erm

Nah, they never got paid

David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL

David

Premium Member

Re: erm

yea spamhaus isn't in the U.S., Linhardt isn't getting a dime. However, They may sue him for the 11M that he potentially can get, and has a loss on the record. Which means Spamhaus could then go to court and really hit him where it hurts.

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert

Premium Member

Re: erm

said by David:

yea spamhaus isn't in the U.S., Linhardt isn't getting a dime. However, They may sue him for the 11M that he potentially can get, and has a loss on the record. Which means Spamhaus could then go to court and really hit him where it hurts.
Looks like the dirtbag is trying to get control of the domain .. "This ruling is significant because it enables e360 to ask the court to execute on the writ and transfer ownership of spamhaus.org to e360" »www.e360insight.com/news ··· tem1.php

Tomek
Premium Member
join:2002-01-30
Valley Stream, NY

Tomek

Premium Member

Re: erm

So now US control of domains may cause problems?

David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL

David to Robert

Premium Member

to Robert
said by Robert:
said by David:

yea spamhaus isn't in the U.S., Linhardt isn't getting a dime. However, They may sue him for the 11M that he potentially can get, and has a loss on the record. Which means Spamhaus could then go to court and really hit him where it hurts.
Looks like the dirtbag is trying to get control of the domain .. "This ruling is significant because it enables e360 to ask the court to execute on the writ and transfer ownership of spamhaus.org to e360" »www.e360insight.com/news ··· tem1.php
I don't think twocows would have the authority in the first place. Plus spamhaus could easily go to other domains and outside U.S. providers. They could also fix this by using a non-us registrar. If they did that I don't think e360 has any hope.

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert

Premium Member

Re: erm

said by David:
said by Robert:
said by David:

yea spamhaus isn't in the U.S., Linhardt isn't getting a dime. However, They may sue him for the 11M that he potentially can get, and has a loss on the record. Which means Spamhaus could then go to court and really hit him where it hurts.
Looks like the dirtbag is trying to get control of the domain .. "This ruling is significant because it enables e360 to ask the court to execute on the writ and transfer ownership of spamhaus.org to e360" »www.e360insight.com/news ··· tem1.php
I don't think twocows would have the authority in the first place. Plus spamhaus could easily go to other domains and outside U.S. providers. They could also fix this by using a non-us registrar. If they did that I don't think e360 has any hope.
But it wouldn't matter who the registrar is, it all falls under ICANN (if it's an ICANN accredited registrar).
The Way Out
join:2003-01-20

The Way Out to David

Member

to David
They've already moved it to Gandi, a French registrar.

David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL

David

Premium Member

Re: erm

said by The Way Out:

They've already moved it to Gandi, a French registrar.
Which means twocows isn't going to have any footing.

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

karlmarx to Robert

Member

to Robert
The fact that a judge would even consider allowing the transfer of a domain, is PROOF that we need ICANN to be OUT OF US CONTROL. The fact that a US company can cause irreparable harm to a non-us based company, by the ruling of a US judge, shows that the US cannot be trusted to run the internet. Spamhuase is NOT BASED IN THE US. The US has NO JURISDICTION. PERIOD. For all the times we say the us should 'run' the internet, this is proof that we aren't capable of doing so.

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert

Premium Member

Re: erm

said by karlmarx:

The fact that a judge would even consider allowing the transfer of a domain, is PROOF that we need ICANN to be OUT OF US CONTROL. The fact that a US company can cause irreparable harm to a non-us based company, by the ruling of a US judge, shows that the US cannot be trusted to run the internet. Spamhuase is NOT BASED IN THE US. The US has NO JURISDICTION. PERIOD. For all the times we say the us should 'run' the internet, this is proof that we aren't capable of doing so.
And where would you like to move ICANN? Make it part of the UN? I don't think so. This Judge should be removed from the bench if he thinks it's ok to enter a judgment against Spamhaus's domain.

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

karlmarx to DrModem

Member

to DrModem
It goes to show how companies abuse the legal system. Why in the world would spamhause ever bother to hire a lawyer and defend themselves if the courts have no jurisdiction. The spammers knew that, so naturally they would get a default judgement. However, the owners of spamhause have probably been flagged by the bush admininstration nazi's, so if they ever do show up in the US, they will be arrested.

To the owners of spamhuase, don't bother to visit the US. We're almost as much of a police state as you are.

manfmmd
Premium Member
join:2003-01-14
Earth, TX

1 recommendation

manfmmd

Premium Member

Re: erm

said by karlmarx:

It goes to show how companies abuse the legal system. Why in the world would spamhause ever bother to hire a lawyer and defend themselves if the courts have no jurisdiction. The spammers knew that, so naturally they would get a default judgement. However, the owners of spamhause have probably been flagged by the bush admininstration nazi's, so if they ever do show up in the US, they will be arrested.

To the owners of spamhuase, don't bother to visit the US. We're almost as much of a police state as you are.
Godwin would be proud.

Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium Member
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL

1 recommendation

Maxo to karlmarx

Premium Member

to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:

However, the owners of spamhause have probably been flagged by the bush admininstration nazi's, so if they ever do show up in the US, they will be arrested.
So they probably have been, but I'm going to guess you don't have even one piece of evidence to back this up. You are just pulling stuff out of thin air to support your pointless points.
dynodb
Premium Member
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

dynodb to karlmarx

Premium Member

to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:

It goes to show how companies abuse the legal system. Why in the world would spamhause ever bother to hire a lawyer and defend themselves if the courts have no jurisdiction. The spammers knew that, so naturally they would get a default judgement. However, the owners of spamhause have probably been flagged by the bush admininstration nazi's, so if they ever do show up in the US, they will be arrested.

To the owners of spamhuase, don't bother to visit the US. We're almost as much of a police state as you are.
If I didn't know better I'd think this was satire. You forgot to mention how Bush is going to throw them in Guantanimo and turn over their operation to Haliburton

Time to up the dosage on the lithium, duder.

RideRed
Vista needs a popup blocker for Vista
Premium Member
join:2005-06-18
USA

1 edit

RideRed

Premium Member

e360 lied in the first case

They told the judge that Spamhaus had a presence in Illinois which they didn't. That court didn't even have jurisdiction in the first place since Spamhaus had no presence there.

Ivybridge_I7
Cyber-Crime Researcher OpSec
Premium Member
join:2004-06-09
Daytona Beach, FL

Ivybridge_I7

Premium Member

David Linhardt , what a dirtbag

"Last year an Illinois court ruled that anti-spam group Spamhaus had to pay $11,715,000 in damages to spammer e360insight and e360insight's David Linhardt for "incorrectly" blacklisting them as spammers."

David Linhardt is more then likely a lowlife spammer trying to profit more on the problem. If I was Spamhaus, I would appeal the case to a higher court. Even though I don't always agree with Spamhaus's way of blacklisting, what will be next, Linhardt filing suit against Spamcop.net
and Ironport. This is just another wasteful lawsuit wasting time in a already busy court system

voiplover
Premium Member
join:2004-05-28
Portsmouth, NH

voiplover

Premium Member

I also HATE SPAMMERS!

I would like to see their Photos, Names, and Address posted like they do with sex offenders!
archaeoptery
join:2007-03-26
90217

1 edit

archaeoptery

Member

Re: I also HATE SPAMMERS!

said by voiplover:

I would like to see their Photos, Names, and Address posted like they do with sex offenders!
That's not in line with their crime - dismember them and show it on Pay-Per-View.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Here's hoping Silverstein prevails in his lawsuits

»www.theregister.com/2007 ··· lawsuit/
Silverstein, a self-employed engineer who runs a web hosting business, claims in the suit to have received at least 87 spam messages promoting the defendants' websites since May 2005. These messages violated Federal anti-spam laws and California state laws because they were allegedly sent through compromised machines and with forged headers, offences against the Federal CAN-SPAM Act. Silverstein is asking for the court to apply an injunction against the defendants along with the imposition of statutory and punitive damages.

RideRed
Vista needs a popup blocker for Vista
Premium Member
join:2005-06-18
USA

RideRed

Premium Member

Re: Here's hoping Silverstein prevails in his lawsuits

And here in California it's something like $1,000 per email in damages up to a maximum of I think $100,000 per occurrence.

woody7
Premium Member
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA

woody7

Premium Member

hmmm........,

"David Linhardt"

Did a google on his name, what a 'db" this guy is a spammers spammer if such a thing....Likes to sue and get sued....make for interesting reading.....
XknightHawkX
join:2003-02-13
East Peoria, IL

XknightHawkX

Member

Spamhaus speaks

Spamhaus had something to say about the case.

»www.spamhaus.org/organiz ··· so?ref=3
JBear
join:2005-02-24
canada

JBear

Member

Re: Spamhaus speaks

Should it not be easy and cheap for Spamhaus to appeal and prove that the spammer lied under oath and have the judgement thrown out?