On Monday, October 23, 2006, 7:52:56 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: MP> The judge should have raised the issue sua sponte. (of his own motion)
While the court can decide, sua sponta, that it doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction, I don't believe it can do that with regards to personal jurisdiction (unless, perhaps, the pleadings were blatantly defective). The Plaintiff did plead (alleged) facts that would tend to support personal jurisdiction over the defendant - the defendant did not refute those facts (if I missed something in the record of the case, please correct me) and, once again, the defendant deliberately allowed judgment to be taken against it. Harping on the court for following the law and because the outcome of the case is exactly what the defendant deliberately allowed to happen is non-sensical. MP> Does anyone have the address of the court? I might write the judge a MP> letter myself. It is trivial to look it up on Google or follow the link to the court's web site from www.uscourts.gov. However, I'd respectfully suggest you don't embarrass yourself. You have no standing in the matter, any such letters would be afforded absolutely no consideration, which is as it should be. Your letter would, at best, simply be sent back to you with a note from the clerk explaining this. As I've explained before, I've been on the receiving end of retaliatory lawsuits and counter-claims from the bad guys (telemarketers, junk faxers and spammers), and am clearly sympathetic to Spamhaus' plight here. However, there is nothing I can see in the record to fault the court on in this case. Spamhaus apparently intends to appeal, so we'll just have to see what issues are raised. -- Best regards, Robert Braver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
