Nick, you bugged my office! There's no other way you could have been privy to the exact conversation my boss had to (not with) me.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 11:59 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Legalities of adding header info On 8 Apr 2005 at 11:36, Darin Cox wrote: ok - we all agree it can be litigated. even if it couldn't no question there is a lawyer that would take the case. At least in Vermont where the percapita density in #1 in the US. The big question is who would be the plantiff. It seems to me that will be Dan, not his employer - they already tagged Danno with that liability: " My supes has tasked me " We will miss you Dan, - you have been an asset to all of us here but the %ALLRECIPS% is well.. reprehensible. Hopefully this blunder of blunders email did not cross state lines - because no question then the feds will prosecute as well. If you have been 'clean' eg - your domain(s) are not in any dnsbl, SpamCop says you are an ok dude you may get community service - teaching others how to properly header tag an email Best of luck, -Nick > And that would be why I'm not a lawyer...<grin>...but I didn't mean to > imply this was a guilt or innocence case...just that if the jury is > trying to determine a settlement, then a good argument that the > plaintiff was partially at fault for revealing the sensitive > information would reduce or possible eliminate any settlement amount. > > Darin. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Charles Frolick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Darin Cox" <Declude.JunkMail@declude.com> > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 11:27 AM > Subject: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Legalities of adding header info > > > Hello Darin, > > Friday, April 8, 2005, 10:07:51 AM, you wrote: > > DC> Certainly true...but in the case of reasonable doubt <grin>, a > good lawyer DC> could use that argument well....but hopefully it won't > come to that. > > DC> Darin. > > Civil cases do not require 'beyond a reasonable doubt', only criminal. > > -- > Best regards, > Charles mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type > "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at > http://www.mail-archive.com. > > --- > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type > "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at > http://www.mail-archive.com. > --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
