Spamhaus lawsuit
JF Mezei
Spamhaus said that some Illinois court has no jurisdiction and didn't
even show up. The US court awarded the spammer an $11 million dollar
award by default since Spamhaus did not choose to defend itself
Spamhaus's response:
http://www.spamhaus.org/legal/answer.lasso?ref=3
Now, consider that the USA has arrested some executives of foreign
e-businesses while they were transiting through USA airports (notably
internet based gambling outfit that operate outside the USA). There is
even question of the USA asking the UK to extradite a UK executive
because the USA doesn't like the type of business he operates on the web.
So the danger now is that spammers may make all these silly lawsuits
against offshore companies, win them by default, and cause many people
to be arrested if they ever land in the USA because the USA accuses them
of being involved with a company that owes a spammer money.
Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)
> Now, consider that the USA has arrested some executives of foreign
> e-businesses while they were transiting through USA airports
> (notably internet based gambling outfit that operate outside the
> USA). There is even question of the USA asking the UK to extradite
> a UK executive because the USA doesn't like the type of business
> he operates on the web.
>
> So the danger now is that spammers may make all these silly lawsuits
> against offshore companies, win them by default, and cause many
> people to be arrested if they ever land in the USA because the
> USA accuses them of being involved with a company that owes a
> spammer money.
Facts of life... the US legal system is b0rk3n
1) anybody can sue anybody else for anything in the USA. And as
SCOGroup vs IBM has shown, you don't even have to tell them what you're
suing them for, at least for the first 3 years of the lawsuit.
2) no matter how stupid the lawsuit, the plaintiff wins if the
defendant doesn't show up to defend.
3) unlike Commonwealth countries (Canada, UK, etc), the USA does
*NOT* have a "loser pay" rule for civil lawsuits.
Spamhaus made the only logical choice, which was to ignore the US
lawsuit. Yes they could've hired a lawyer to represent them in Illinois
and paid for it out of their own pockets, never to see that money again.
In the US, someone with enough money can bankrupt a personal enemy who
doesn't have as much money, SLAPP legislation notwithstanding. If
Spamhaus spent large legal bills every time they were sued anywhere on
the planet, they'd soon be bankrupt. American-based MAPS has been sued
into ineffectiveness. And SPEWS has to hide under a cloak of anonimity
in self-defense.
I'm glad I don't live in the USA... and that there isn't extradition
for lawsuits. Maybe what we need is for a few tourists to get arrested
on crap like this, and countries will react by telling their citizens
not to enter the USA. When tourism declines precipitously the big money
interests in the USA will *DEMAND* that this stop. And they will have
the necessary influence.
--
Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like wzal...@waltdnes.org
Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
the instructions at the end of the 550 message.
Sylvain Robitaille
> Spamhaus made the only logical choice, which was to ignore the US
> lawsuit. Yes they could've hired a lawyer to represent them in
> Illinois and paid for it out of their own pockets, never to see that
> money again.
Well, were they to win the lawsuit, could they not then turn around and
sue for legal costs?
However, hiring a lawyer to defend them in Illinois court would have
implied that the the court has jurisdiction (either that they do operate
in Illinois, or that the Illinois court has jurisdiction over them
outside of Illinois).
At the moment, it seems that the spammer is entitles to stick his tongue
out in Spamhaus' general direction, chanting "nya nya!" but if he wants
anything real to come out of that ruling he'll have to start proceedings
in a UK court.
> American-based MAPS has been sued into ineffectiveness.
Ineffectiveness?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille s...@alcor.concordia.ca
Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Madonna
> Walter Dnes wrote:
>
>> Spamhaus made the only logical choice, which was to ignore the US
>> lawsuit. Yes they could've hired a lawyer to represent them in
>> Illinois and paid for it out of their own pockets, never to see that
>> money again.
>
> Well, were they to win the lawsuit, could they not then turn around and
> sue for legal costs?
>
> However, hiring a lawyer to defend them in Illinois court would have
> implied that the the court has jurisdiction (either that they do operate
> in Illinois, or that the Illinois court has jurisdiction over them
> outside of Illinois).
This bogus lawsuit is suing a fictional Illinois business called Spamhaus.
The real UK Spamhaus can safely ignore this. Only the media seem to care about it.
If this case would have any validity in international law you'd have
sites like http://dalailama.com/ getting sued in Shanghai.
Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)
> Walter Dnes wrote:
>
> > Spamhaus made the only logical choice, which was to ignore the US
> > lawsuit. Yes they could've hired a lawyer to represent them in
> > Illinois and paid for it out of their own pockets, never to see that
> > money again.
>
> Well, were they to win the lawsuit, could they not then turn around and
> sue for legal costs?
NO. Like I said, the US legal system is different from ours. It
is *NOT* "loser-pays-both-sides'-lawyers". And another item is that
Spamhaus was sued by a corporation. You have to have gross abuse of
process before a court will even *THINK* of awarding legal fees to a
winning defendant.
> However, hiring a lawyer to defend them in Illinois court would
> have implied that the the court has jurisdiction (either that they
> do operate in Illinois, or that the Illinois court has jurisdiction
> over them outside of Illinois).
And repeated often enough would result in bankruptcy for Spamhaus.
> > American-based MAPS has been sued into ineffectiveness.
>
> Ineffectiveness?
Let's just say you hear a lot less about them than you used to.
Sylvain Robitaille
> NO. Like I said, the US legal system is different from ours. It
> is *NOT* "loser-pays-both-sides'-lawyers".
Right, but it's the US, where you can sue anyone for anything. If
Spamhaus can get sued for publishing a listing, and assuming they
defended themselves and won, I don't see why they can't turn around and
sue the original plaintiff for "damages" (ie. their legal fees). I'm
fairly certain it happens all the time (see "countersuit"), though I'm
neither a lawyer nor American.
> You have to have gross abuse of process before a court will even
> *THINK* of awarding legal fees to a winning defendant.
Fabricating the claim that Spamhaus operates in Illinois (assuming they
don't), in order to have a court accept the case, strikes me as "gross
abuse of process" but I suppose that would be for the court to decide.
>>> American-based MAPS has been sued into ineffectiveness.
>> Ineffectiveness?
> Let's just say you hear a lot less about them than you used to.
There's no need to talk (or write) about something that just quietly
works day in and day out ...
Geoffrey Welsh
>>> Ineffectiveness?
>> Let's just say you hear a lot less about them than you used to.
>
> There's no need to talk (or write) about something that just quietly
> works day in and day out ...
I believe the reason why we don't hear much about MAPS anymore is that they
turned themselves into a pay service some time ago and are not nearly as
widely used as the free services.
--
Geoffrey Welsh <Geoffrey [dot] Welsh [at] bigfoot [dot] com>
I don't buy the 9/11 conspiracy theories because, although I disagree
with George W. Bush on many things, I don't believe that he would ever
do anything that would kill thousands of Americans, injure countless
more, endanger the economy, and risk exposing him as a liar just to
advance his own agenda. Never mind... that's what he did in Iraq!
Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)
> Walter Dnes wrote:
>
> > NO. Like I said, the US legal system is different from ours. It
> > is *NOT* "loser-pays-both-sides'-lawyers".
>
> Right, but it's the US, where you can sue anyone for anything. If
> Spamhaus can get sued for publishing a listing, and assuming they
> defended themselves and won, I don't see why they can't turn around and
> sue the original plaintiff for "damages" (ie. their legal fees). I'm
> fairly certain it happens all the time (see "countersuit"), though I'm
> neither a lawyer nor American.
It doesn't happen often. The few occasions it happens is *BIG* news.
It usually happens only at the state court level in the few states with
"anti-SLAPP" legislation. "Countersuits" are not for recovery of legal
fees. Think of it as the legal equivalant of "a good offense is the best
defense". They are stand-alone lawsuits in their own right. They're
usually handled by the same judge at the same time and usually draw on a
common set of evidence/documents/testimony, but are standalone lawsuits
in their own right. In most cases the defendant/counterclaim-plaintiff
wouldn't have sued if they hadn't been sued in the first place. Think
of it as all-out war.
> > You have to have gross abuse of process before a court will even
> > *THINK* of awarding legal fees to a winning defendant.
>
> Fabricating the claim that Spamhaus operates in Illinois (assuming
> they don't), in order to have a court accept the case, strikes me as
> "gross abuse of process" but I suppose that would be for the court to
> decide.
Merely making a claim, and having it debunked, is *NOT* cause for
awarding lawyers fees to the victorious defendant. This is *NOT* the
Canadian system... "everything you know is wrong".
I also mentioned Spamhaus was sued by a corporation, and then dropped
that line of thought. I had intended to mention that many litigants set
up corporate shells with loose connections. The lawsuit is launched by
a "corporation" with very few assets. Even if it gets counter-sued into
oblivion, only the corporate shell dies, the scam survives.
> >>> American-based MAPS has been sued into ineffectiveness.
> >> Ineffectiveness?
> > Let's just say you hear a lot less about them than you used to.
>
> There's no need to talk (or write) about something that just quietly
> works day in and day out ...
One reason MAPS doesn't get written about any more is that they
aren't getting hit by garbage lawsuits like they were in their early
days. They don't dare list "legitimate email marketers" that follow the
American (Yes, you) CAN-SPAM act. They just list bot-nets, 419-ers, and
stock pumpers. I MAPS' earlier days, they would've listed e360... and
gotten sued.
JF Mezei
The spammer went back to court to demonstrate that Spamhaus did not
comply with US court ruling, be judged in contempt of court and have its
domain pulled by ICANN. (since ICANN is american , a US court could
force ICANN to widthdraw the spamhaus.org domain).
http://www.spamhaus.org/archive/legal/e360/kocoras_order_6_10.pdf
Spamhaus's response:
http://www.spamhaus.org/legal/answer.lasso?ref=4
Madonna
I like the part where they say "there is no cause for alarm" then go on to say
"The effect of 650 million email boxes (Spamhaus' userbase) suddenly receiving
such a barrage of illegal spam, scams and bank phishes is, in my opinion, extremely
dangerous. For this reason alone we believe that ... suspending spamhaus.org is
almost certainly a no-starter"
Geoffrey Welsh
> The spammer went back to court to demonstrate that Spamhaus did not
> comply with US court ruling, be judged in contempt of court and have
> its domain pulled by ICANN. (since ICANN is american , a US court
> could force ICANN to widthdraw the spamhaus.org domain).
Although I have no doubt that the original ruling went the way it did
primarily because Spamhaus did not see fit to spend money defending itself in
a foreign jurisdiction, this whole case revolves around a lying spammer (is
there any other kind?) finding a jodge who is not fmailiar with the technical
workings of the internet. Apparently the spammer is also short on
understanding of some of the finer workings:
"Please note that ICANN is not a party to this action and no order has been
issued in this matter requiring any action by ICANN. Additionally, ICANN
cannot comply with any order requiring it to suspend Spamhaus.org or any
specific domain name because ICANN does not have either the ability or the
authority to do so.
"[...]
"Even if ICANN were properly brought before the court in this matter, which
ICANN has not been, ICANN cannot comply with any order requiring it to
suspend or place a client hold on Spamhaus.org or any specific domain name
because ICANN does not have either the ability or the authority to do so.
Only the Internet registrar with whom the registrant has a contractual
relationship - and in certain instances the Internet registry - can suspend
an individual domain name."
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-10oct06.htm
So, according to ICANN, the spammer should have named TUCOWS, not ICANN...
however, a quick glance at their "Contact Us" page suggests that TUCOWS may
still be a Canadian company and thus also outside the U.S. court's
jurisdiction (perhaps that's why the spammer named ICANN and not TUCOWS?)
If this case ever does seriously threaten Spamhaus, I would hope that those
of us who have benefitted from their work, would come to their aid.
JF Mezei
> cannot comply with any order requiring it to suspend Spamhaus.org or any
> specific domain name because ICANN does not have either the ability or the
> authority to do so.
ICANN is still technically a US government body reporting to the USA
govermment. If a USA court decides that spamhaus.org needs to be zapped,
then ICANN could be force to do it. However, isn't it correct to state
that ICANN does not actually run the .ORG root servers and that this was
outsourced to Verisign ?
So Verisign would be the one able to physically implement a change that
would result in all requests for spamhaus.org being redirected to
something else (like it had done for non existant domains) or return a
"not found".
> So, according to ICANN, the spammer should have named TUCOWS, not ICANN...
> however, a quick glance at their "Contact Us" page suggests that TUCOWS may
> still be a Canadian company and thus also outside the U.S. court's
> jurisdiction (
Yep. And I think that this event should be a rude awakening to any
organisation whose registrar is american. In fact, if you are legit, you
shoudl always have a registrar that is in your own country. This way,
things are much simpler from a legal point of view.
If ICANN is forced to act on this, it essentially means the end of ICANN
and a forced move of the internet TLD admin to a neutral country.
Eric S. Smith: Left-Field Marshal
> a forced move of the internet TLD admin to a neutral country.
"Neutral"? What's neutral? A country where court orders are
unenforceable? I don't think you'd want anything important based in
such a place. Law and order are good things, generally speaking.
--Eric Smith
Marc Bissonnette
disgorging news:452e319e$0$26870$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
> In article <1160655361....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Eric S. Smith: Left-Field Marshal" <smi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Neutral"? What's neutral? A country where court orders are
>> unenforceable? I don't think you'd want anything important based in
>> such a place. Law and order are good things, generally speaking.
>
> Who's law? Who's order?
Exactly. That's a *really* good point.
While Warren's answer might appear facetious (sp?) to some, think about the
US judicial system: In a litigious society, some of their court orders
approach the insane. In Spamhaus' particular case, they showed up in the
beginning, said (essentially) "Your honour, we're a british company, we
don't do business here, you don't have jurisdiction" and the spammer got a
default judgement of eleven million dollars.
"Who's law? Who's order?" is a very good question, indeed.
--
Marc Bissonnette
Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com
Largest ISP comparison site across Canada.
DevilsPGD
Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com> wrote:
>Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> altered the spacetime fabric by
>disgorging news:452e319e$0$26870$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
>
>> In article <1160655361....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Eric S. Smith: Left-Field Marshal" <smi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Neutral"? What's neutral? A country where court orders are
>>> unenforceable? I don't think you'd want anything important based in
>>> such a place. Law and order are good things, generally speaking.
>>
>> Who's law? Who's order?
>
>Exactly. That's a *really* good point.
>
>While Warren's answer might appear facetious (sp?) to some, think about the
>US judicial system: In a litigious society, some of their court orders
>approach the insane. In Spamhaus' particular case, they showed up in the
>beginning, said (essentially) "Your honour, we're a british company, we
>don't do business here, you don't have jurisdiction" and the spammer got a
>default judgement of eleven million dollars.
>"Who's law? Who's order?" is a very good question, indeed.
Unfortunately, Spamhaus first had the case transferred to federal court,
THEN said "No jurisdiction" -- The court's position is that since they
took ANY action other then claiming no jurisdiction, they agreed to
jurisdiction.
--
Ah, the miracle mile, where value wears a neon sombrero and there's
not a single church or library to offend the eye.
-- Homer
Geoffrey Welsh
> Geoffrey Welsh wrote:
>> cannot comply with any order requiring it to suspend Spamhaus.org or
>> any specific domain name because ICANN does not have either the
>> ability or the authority to do so.
I didn't write that, ICANN did.
> ICANN is still technically a US government body reporting to the USA
> govermment
... and who have no contract with the Spamhaus project and therefore have no
grounds to apply and terms and conditions directly to Spamhaus' registration.
> If a USA court decides that spamhaus.org needs to be
> zapped, then ICANN could be force to do it. However, isn't it
> correct to state that ICANN does not actually run the .ORG root
> servers and that this was outsourced to Verisign ?
I thought the registration of .org was in fact given to someone else
(http://www.pir.org/), and that Verisign were simply contracted to continue
providing the infrastructure.
Even so there's a chain of contractual obligation and, now that you've
mentioned the .org registry, it look like it's from Spamhaus to TUCOWS to PIR
to ICANN.
> If ICANN is forced to act on this, it essentially means the end of
> ICANN and a forced move of the internet TLD admin to a neutral
> country.
There is no neutral country (every country has its own interests), and Lord
help us if ICANN's responsibilities are transferred to the UN (The ITU - a UN
agency - has done excellent work with a minimum of politicization, but the
internet is too high-profile to allow the UN or even the ITU to do a good job
of stewarding the internet.)
However, remember that the internet is an outgrowth of the U.S. Department of
Defense and it was real nice for them to let outsiders grow it to private
industry and foreign countries. If that means that the U.S. can dictate
decisions (even stupid ones, like the .xxx TLD), then that's what we have to
live with; if the rest of the world doesn't accept that, they can build their
own internet and we'll see if they can do any better.