Re[2]: Any comments of the SpamHaus lawsuit?

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

On Wednesday, October 11, 2006, 1:16:18 AM, hamann.w wrote:

hwtod> As a non-american, I can see this as a "vote with your feet"
hwtod> case .... stop buying US products

I'm squarely on the side of Spamhaus and sensitive to these issues,
as I myself have been sued by a ROKSO-listed spa^H^H^H
electronic marketing entrepreneur, in a foreign jurisdiction
(California) and had to move to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, which I was successful in doing.

Blaming the court, the U.S., or the U.S. legal system is completely
unwarranted. From what I have seen from news articles, public
discussion, and the documents filed in the case itself, Spamhaus did
not challenge personal jurisdiction. Spamhaus, after removing the
case from state court to federal court and filing an answer,
deliberately allowed a default judgment for damages and a permanent
injunction to be taken against it, apparently under the theory that
any such judgment would be unenforceable anyway.

I'm not an expert on German law, but I suspect that if some spammer
sued me in Germany, I'd have to take some affirmative steps to deal
with that, lest I end up with a German judgment rendered against me.

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
 rbraver@ohww.norman.ok.us

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

RE: Re[2]: Any comments of the SpamHaus lawsuit?

[R Lists06 <li...@abbacomm.net>]

> 
> 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

Why blame the plaintiffs?

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

As is authority and jurisdiction.

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

Then what?

 - rh

--
Robert - Abba Communications
   Computer & Internet Services
 (509) 624-7159 - www.abbacomm.net