On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 09:23 -0400, Coffey, Neal wrote:
> [snip]
> SpamHaus took on more responsibility than they'd like to admit.
> Unfortunately, this bit of the story isn't widely reported. Here's the
> best reference I could find, from the blog of an Illinois lawyer:
>
> http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/664
>From the article:
"As lawyers always do, let me caveat this with the usual
disclaimers: I know only the bare minimum of details about the
case, this message should not be construed in any way as legal
advice, and no one should mistake me for a qualified trial
lawyer. As someone, probably a law professor, once said: those
who can do, do; those who can’t, teach."
>From my mother:
"... and those who can't teach, teach teachers" ;-)
> "Spamhaus may have waived personal jurisdiction as a defense early on in
> the case when they not only appeared, but then asked for the case to be
> removed from state court (where it was originally filed) and moved to
> federal district court (where it is today). Arguably, [...] doing so
> inherently acknowledged the jurisdiction of the federal court."
>
> Basically, SpamHaus said "Hey, you don't have jurisdiction, the Federal
> courts do!" Then, when the case went to the Federal courts, SpamHaus
> said "Wait...you don't either!" Which doesn't work.
>
> That being said, I'm definitely on SpamHaus' side of the case in every
> legal and moral sense. It's unfortunate that they may have screwed
> themselves.
Well, the dillemma is now clear: have a public presence and risk SLAPP
suits, or join SPEWS and put up with getting your email via NANAB. Seems
like an easy choice to me.
Bill
