Re[4]: Any comments of the SpamHaus lawsuit?

[Robert Braver <rb...@ohww.norman.ok.us>]

On Sunday, October 15, 2006, 5:21:38 PM, R Lists06 wrote:

>> Blame the plaintiffs, blame what some might consider to be
>> less-than-stellar legal advice given Spamhaus, but don't blame the
>> court for following the law.
>> 
>> --
>> Best regards,
>>  Robert Braver

RL> Why blame the plaintiffs?

The plaintiffs are the parties who filed the lawsuit against
Spamhaus.  I'm not familiar with the merits of their case, nor was
there ever a determination on the merits in this case.  Spamhaus
walked away from the proceedings, allowing a default judgement to be
entered against it.

However, Spamhaus has a great deal of credibility as far as I'm
concerned, and I have been hauled to court more than once by
vindictive "electronic marketing entrepreneurs" making similar
claims, so I tend to take it on faith that Spamhaus was publishing
accurate information, and therefore the plaintiff's case had no
merit.

RL> Fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be, law is subject to
RL> interpretation based upon precedent, or lack thereof.

RL> As is authority and jurisdiction.

RL> Plus, people are fallible, make mistakes. Judges too.

RL> Then what?

Huh?


-- 
Best regards,
 Robert Braver
 rbraver@ohww.norman.ok.us