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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]