Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

>> >> It was Mr. Charles Benn who, according to the service of process affidavit, >> was authorized to receive process on their behalf. > > It won't surprise you to learn that we have absolutely no clue who "Charles > Benn" is, literally never heard of the guy. Steve, my working theory is

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

On 4 Aug 2020, at 11:32, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: > > It was Mr. Charles Benn who, according to the service of process affidavit, > was authorized to receive process on their behalf. It won't surprise you to learn that we have absolutely no clue who "Charles Benn" is, literally never

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

On 4 Aug 2020, at 04:29, John Levine via mailop wrote: > > In article <28453035-f078-4311-8472-1aa190c45...@isipp.com > > you write: >> >> >> From the judgement: >> >> "he plaintiff has shown that it has complied with the Hague

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

> Another relevant piece of data. The organization that was named in the suit > and has received a permanent injunction against it has been voluntarily > dissolved and struck off the UK registry of companies. > > https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05303831 > > There is no one

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

Curious. The document was served last September, if I'm reading it correctly. Yet the organization was dissolved in March 2020. I suppose they can enjoy the rich rewards of collecting from a dissolved entity in a foreign country. On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 2:35 AM Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: > >

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

On 8/4/20 09:24, Rob Nagler via mailop wrote: It is actually more sinister than anybody realizes. I did some research into Charles "Charlie" Benn. He is working on new technology  to get spam into the UK and the EU. RFC1149 has been around since 1990, not

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

It is actually more sinister than anybody realizes. I did some research into Charles "Charlie" Benn. He is working on new technology to get spam into the UK and the EU. He works undercover for a real estate company

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

On 8/4/20 06:07, Chris via mailop wrote: On 2020-08-04 05:32, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: It was Mr. Charles Benn who, according to the service of process affidavit, was authorized to receive process on their behalf. Actually, "Charlie Benn".

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case, Against The Spamhaus Project

On 8/4/20 2:33 AM, mailop-requ...@mailop.org wrote: > Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case > Against The Spamhaus Project The astonishing thing about all this is that DatabaseUSA bothered to dump thousands and thousands of dollars into lawyers to achieve a completel

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

On 2020-08-04 09:38, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: On 4 Aug 2020, at 14:07, Chris via mailop It's my impression that nobody has the slightest idea who this is, or why anyone would think this person is "authorized”. Which means the process server committed perjury as this was a sworn

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

> On 4 Aug 2020, at 14:07, Chris via mailop wrote: > > On 2020-08-04 05:32, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: > >> It was Mr. Charles Benn who, according to the service of process affidavit, >> was authorized to receive process on their behalf. >>

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

On 2020-08-04 05:32, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: It was Mr. Charles Benn who, according to the service of process affidavit, was authorized to receive process on their behalf. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16243626/6/databaseusacom-llc-v-the-spamhaus-project/ It's my impression

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

> On 4 Aug 2020, at 03:29, John Levine via mailop wrote: > > In article <28453035-f078-4311-8472-1aa190c45...@isipp.com> you write: >> >> >>> Did you not read what I quoted from the Spamhaus website? They are based >>> in Switzerland and Andorra, not the UK. My assumption is that there is

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

On 2020-08-03 17:39, Jerry Cloe via mailop wrote: It could also be argued as case law against other blacklist providers. As I understand US law, defaults do not provide any form of precedent or other form of useful case law. There might well be exceptions, of course.

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

In article you write: >Right...the thing is that a default judgement is still a judgement. And >because they are in the UK doesn't mean that it can't be enforced against >them.. in the UK. They're not in the UK. They're in Andorra: https://www.spamhaus.org/faq/section/Organization#92 I

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

In article <28453035-f078-4311-8472-1aa190c45...@isipp.com> you write: > > >> Did you not read what I quoted from the Spamhaus website? They are based >> in Switzerland and Andorra, not the UK. My assumption is that there is >> basically no chance of any U.S. ruling being enforced in either of

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

I'm pretty sure "spammers lie" holds up in court. :P On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 5:59 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop < mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > > > >> From the judgement: > >> "The plaintiff has shown that it has complied with the Hague Convention > and personally served a representative

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

>> From the judgement: >> "The plaintiff has shown that it has complied with the Hague Convention and >> personally served a representative authorized to accept service of process >> in London." > > Rule #1 of spam: Spammers lie. Absolutely. However, a court isn't going to take a party's

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

On 8/3/20 17:31, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop wrote: Did you not read what I quoted from the Spamhaus website? They are based in Switzerland and Andorra, not the UK. My assumption is that there is basically no chance of any U.S. ruling being enforced in either of these two countries,

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

>> Did you not read what I quoted from the Spamhaus website? They are based >> in Switzerland and Andorra, not the UK. My assumption is that there is >> basically no chance of any U.S. ruling being enforced in either of these >> two countries, unless it is related to a serious crime. I should

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

> Did you not read what I quoted from the Spamhaus website? They are based > in Switzerland and Andorra, not the UK. My assumption is that there is > basically no chance of any U.S. ruling being enforced in either of these > two countries, unless it is related to a serious crime. From the

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

* Anne P. Mitchell: > the thing is that a default judgement is still a judgement. And > because they are in the UK doesn't mean that it can't be enforced > against them.. in the UK. Did you not read what I quoted from the Spamhaus website? They are based in Switzerland and Andorra, not the UK.

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

> default judgment, Spamhaus is not a US organization or wasn't properly served > or whatever. Right...the thing is that a default judgement is still a judgement. And because they are in the UK doesn't mean that it can't be enforced against them.. in the UK. Here are two good articles

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

That might be a dangerous assumption (admittedly I'm no lawyer) that this means zip. It may not mean much against Spamhaus directly, but any kind of injunction against them could in theory be used against anyone who uses Spamhaus services. It could also be argued as case law against other

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

Whether or not they were, the Court considered Spamhaus served: > At the first hearing on March 12, 2020, an issue arose on whether the > plaintiff had properly served the > defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. The plaintiff was > granted leave to submit a brief on the > issue. See

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

* Brandon Long via mailop: > default judgment, Spamhaus is not a US organization or wasn't properly > served or whatever. Looks like it. https://www.spamhaus.org/organization/ states: "Founded in 1998, Spamhaus is based in Geneva, Switzerland, and Andorra la Vella, Andorra [...]" From what

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

Following up on my own post, it was a default judgement (we just posted the memorandum here: https://www.theinternetpatrol.com/databaseusa-wins-case-against-spamhaus-in-matter-of-databaseusa-v-spamhaus-in-federal-court/ ..and will be adding our own commentary shortly). DatabaseUSA has been

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ned-8_19-cv-00423/context default judgment, Spamhaus is not a US organization or wasn't properly served or whatever. Brandon On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 3:49 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop < mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > This is disturbing, although