Quote:
|
Well what did you intend by imputing that affiliates could be fined or jailed? There's no mention of that anywhere and it's not "between the lines" either.
|
Actually, lawyers are hired to read between the lines, and when they want to read between the lines of a Civil Consent Decree like the one Cyberheat agreed to, they read things like
Restonic Charged With Criminal Contempt
Court Finds Smith and Schlumberger Guilty of Criminal Contempt for Violating Consent Decree
Criminal Contempt for Violation of Consent Decree in Fair Labor Standards Act Case
FTC Holds Owner of Funderal Home In Criminal Contempt in 2002 for Violating Consent Decree He Entered into Ten Years Before
A finding of criminal contempt for violating a Consent Decree is proper under
City of Richmond v. Thornton, 548 F.2d 123
when it is "proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a person willfully, contumaciously, intentionally, or with a wrongful state of mind, violated a decree which was definite, clear, specific, and left no doubt or uncertainty in the minds of those to whom it was addressed."
These legal principles should put rest to the notion that a Consent Decree enforcing CANSPAM regulations is of no greater legal effect than the CANSPAM act itself.
But if you need it made clearer, check out
this brief by the Department of Justice, that says:
A key purpose of having clear, objective prohibitions in a consent decree is to avoid future litigation .... A Final Judgment can validly prohibit transactions, even if those transactions would not themselves independently violate the ... laws. A court's equitable power is broad, and not limited to enjoining illegal activity. The court can also impose prophylactic or remedial provisions that prohibit otherwise legal conduct if it concludes that those measures are an aid to, or are necessary or important for, ensuring effective relief.
Prophylactic relief -- or remedial provisions -- Now that I think of it, that's exactly what an industry full of jerkoffs and strung out on Viagra needs!