moonpuppy (banned) join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD |
moonpuppy (banned)
Member
2007-Mar-26 1:27 pm
May or may not impact the case..........since Spamhaus did not even respond to the first complaint and lost by default. | |
|
| KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2007-Mar-26 4:42 pm
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. | |
|
| |
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. | |
|
| | |
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. | |
|
| | | |
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 |
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. | |
|
DrModemTrust Your Doctor Premium Member join:2006-10-19 USA |
DrModem
Premium Member
2007-Mar-26 1:28 pm
ermSo 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 |
Re: ermNah, they never got paid | |
|
| | David Premium Member join:2002-05-30 Granite City, IL |
David
Premium Member
2007-Mar-26 1:57 pm
Re: ermyea 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
2007-Mar-26 3:52 pm
Re: ermsaid 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
2007-Mar-26 4:21 pm
Re: ermSo now US control of domains may cause problems? | |
|
| | | | David Premium Member join:2002-05-30 Granite City, IL |
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
2007-Mar-26 5:50 pm
Re: ermsaid 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). | |
|
| | | | | |
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
2007-Mar-26 6:17 pm
Re: ermsaid by The Way Out:They've already moved it to Gandi, a French registrar. Which means twocows isn't going to have any footing. | |
|
| | | | |
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
2007-Mar-27 7:29 am
Re: ermsaid 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. | |
|
| |
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
2007-Mar-26 1:54 pm
Re: ermsaid 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. | |
|
| | MaxoYour tax dollars at work. Premium Member join:2002-11-04 Tallahassee, FL
1 recommendation |
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 |
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. | |
|
RideRedVista needs a popup blocker for Vista Premium Member join:2005-06-18 USA 1 edit |
RideRed
Premium Member
2007-Mar-26 1:53 pm
e360 lied in the first caseThey 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_I7Cyber-Crime Researcher OpSec Premium Member join:2004-06-09 Daytona Beach, FL |
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 |
I also HATE SPAMMERS!I would like to see their Photos, Names, and Address posted like they do with sex offenders! | |
|
| 1 edit |
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
2007-Mar-26 3:56 pm
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. | |
|
| RideRedVista needs a popup blocker for Vista Premium Member join:2005-06-18 USA |
RideRed
Premium Member
2007-Mar-27 1:03 pm
Re: Here's hoping Silverstein prevails in his lawsuitsAnd 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
2007-Mar-26 4:02 pm
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..... | |
|
|
| JBear join:2005-02-24 canada |
JBear
Member
2007-Mar-28 12:23 pm
Re: Spamhaus speaksShould it not be easy and cheap for Spamhaus to appeal and prove that the spammer lied under oath and have the judgement thrown out? | |
|
|
|