Re: News: SpamCop ordered to stop reporting Richter's spam
DougThegarden at hotmail.com
Wed May 12 13:37:11 EDT 2004
"Spambo" <rmu93awSPAMB02 at sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:c7spi9$htj$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> The "logic of the legal system" should not be to issue orders in a civil
> case that violate a defendant's First Amendment rights without due process.
"The TRO is not a big deal, but everyone will think it is," said attorney Anne
Mitchell, president and CEO of the Institute for Spam and Internet Public
Policy. "The purpose of a TRO is to either maintain or restore a status quo.
In this case it's a very short period of time."
> As to your claims about Ironport not responding to prevent the TRO,
> may I suggest that you read the title of the motion made and then
> look up the term "ex parte"?
If Ironport filed no response to the request by the deadline then the decision
will have been made ex parte. If not responding meant the Court could not
make such an order, then you could frustrate every such application by not
responding. In the absence of a response therefore the Court will make the
decision on the information available to it. It was up to Ironport to make
sure they got a response in and on time if they didn't want to lose by
More information about the SpamCop-List