|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Martijn LievaartMartijn Lievaart Date: Oct 5, 2006 10:55
Googling around for half an hour didn't turn up squat. All pointers posted
here did'nt solve the question. You claimed there was a judgement for 2M,
yet I cannot find any proof.
Please post a pointer, or mail me that pointer (my reply to is valid), as
I find this more than a little disturbing.
M4
--
Redundancy is a great way to introduce more single points of failure.
|
| |
|
| | 34 Comments |
|
|
Author: e360Insighte360Insight Date: Oct 5, 2006 20:45
>
> Hey dip shit, thanks for posting that. It clearly says that the
> default would have been granted had the plaintiff asked so what
> Lindord says is accurate in a sense.
Mr. Linford's statement is false nevertheless. It sounds like you're a
kool-aid drinking fanatic. Like all fanatics, I'm sure you won't let
the facts get in the way of your beliefs.
Unlike the previous cases against Spamhaus, our case resulted in a
judgment. We have moved on to the enforcement phase to ensure the
courts ruling and permanent injunction against Spamhaus is upheld.
Warmest regards,
Dave Linhardt
|
| |
|
| | 17 Comments |
|
|
Author: SneakyPSneakyP Date: Oct 5, 2006 21:12
e360Insight wrote:
>>
>> Hey dip shit, thanks for posting that. It clearly says that the
>> default would have been granted had the plaintiff asked so what
>> Lindord says is accurate in a sense.
>
> Mr. Linford's statement is false nevertheless. It sounds like you're a
> kool-aid drinking fanatic. Like all fanatics, I'm sure you won't let
> the facts get in the way of your beliefs.
Yours is as warped as ever. How is collecting from Spamhaus going?
Don't let the United Kingdom courts get in your way.
>
> Unlike the previous cases against Spamhaus, our case resulted in a
> judgment. We have moved on to the enforcement phase to ensure the
> courts ruling and permanent injunction against Spamhaus is upheld.
You huff much helium?
|
| Show full article (0.86Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Tim BolenTim Bolen Date: Oct 5, 2006 21:19
David Linhardt:
In response to your message below:
>
> Mr. Linford's statement is false nevertheless. It sounds like you're a
> kool-aid drinking fanatic. Like all fanatics, I'm sure you won't let
> the facts get in the way of your beliefs.
>
> Unlike the previous cases against Spamhaus, our case resulted in a
> judgment. We have moved on to the enforcement phase to ensure the
> courts ruling and permanent injunction against Spamhaus is upheld.
>
> Warmest regards,
>
> Dave Linhardt
Thank you very much, David, for your hard work in this matter. You are
making America a better place.
|
| Show full article (1.56Kb) |
| 9 Comments |
|
|
Author: Jessie CJessie C Date: Oct 5, 2006 21:31
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:24:54 -0700, e360Insight wrote:
> Certainly,
> this is not the first false statement Mr. Linford has made.
You misspelled Linhardt in that sentance.
You are a spammer Linhardt. Spamhaus is exactly correct in listing you. As
a spammer, you automatically lose all credibility because spammers are
known liars, and can never be trusted. *YOU* ruined your reputation, not
Spamhaus, and now you get to live with the consequences.
Had any luck collecting on your worthless fraudulent judgement yet?
I didn't think so.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Some BastardSome Bastard Date: Oct 5, 2006 22:05
On 5 Oct 2006 21:19:12 -0700, "Tim Bolen" yahoo.com> wrote:
>I note that you are moving on to the "enforcement phase" in your action
>against Spamhaus, and I congragulate you. I assume that you will be
>"third party subpoenaing" certain suspected leaders of the
>Spamhaus/SPEWS conspiracy. As you may already be aware, several of
>them are in California.
>
suspected leaders of the Spamhaus/SPEWS conspiracy ???? HELLO DUMB ASS
! Steve Linford is the leader of spamhaus, there's no suspecting about
it ! And as far as the leader of SPEWS goes, i think it's angel this
week.
Who has SPEWS duty next week?
PS: The only thing lindhardt is capable of enforcing is the fact he's
a spammy fuckoff. He'll never see a dime of Spamhaus's checking
account.
|
| Show full article (1.01Kb) |
| 5 Comments |
|
|
Author: Hawkeye-XHawkeye-X Date: Oct 5, 2006 22:10
On 5 Oct 2006 20:45:15 -0700, "e360Insight" gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey dip shit, thanks for posting that. It clearly says that the
>> default would have been granted had the plaintiff asked so what
>> Lindord says is accurate in a sense.
>
>Mr. Linford's statement is false nevertheless. It sounds like you're a
>kool-aid drinking fanatic. Like all fanatics, I'm sure you won't let
>the facts get in the way of your beliefs.
>
>Unlike the previous cases against Spamhaus, our case resulted in a
>judgment. We have moved on to the enforcement phase to ensure the
>courts ruling and permanent injunction against Spamhaus is upheld.
>
>Warmest regards,
>
>Dave Linhardt
|
| Show full article (1.04Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Hawkeye-XHawkeye-X Date: Oct 5, 2006 22:13
On 5 Oct 2006 21:19:12 -0700, "Tim Bolen" yahoo.com> wrote:
>David Linhardt:
>
>In response to your message below:
>>
>> Mr. Linford's statement is false nevertheless. It sounds like you're a
>> kool-aid drinking fanatic. Like all fanatics, I'm sure you won't let
>> the facts get in the way of your beliefs.
>>
>> Unlike the previous cases against Spamhaus, our case resulted in a
>> judgment. We have moved on to the enforcement phase to ensure the
>> courts ruling and permanent injunction against Spamhaus is upheld.
>>
>> Warmest regards,
>>
>> Dave Linhardt
>
>Thank you very much, David, for your hard work in this matter. You are
>making America a better place.
|
| Show full article (2.15Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Date: Oct 5, 2006 22:34
>> Hey dip shit, thanks for posting that. It clearly says that the
>> default would have been granted had the plaintiff asked so what
>> Lindord says is accurate in a sense.
>
> Mr. Linford's statement is false nevertheless. It sounds like you're
> a kool-aid drinking fanatic. Like all fanatics, I'm sure you won't
> let the facts get in the way of your beliefs.
Speaking of facts, be sure to notify the rest of the world when any of
the following happens:
1. You receive any money from spamhaus due to a judgment in a U.S.
court
2. They apologize
3. They remove you from their blocklist
> Unlike the previous cases against Spamhaus, our case resulted in a
> judgment.
|
| Show full article (1.40Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
