Quote:
Originally Posted by Shelleehale
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! |
This might be fine if Cyberheat trangresses their consent brief but has nothing to do with me or an affilliate who signs or doesn't.
If I sign and don't transgress I'm not bound by anything to anything you blindly listed there.
If I sign and transgress, I'm violating the Cyberheat/TopBucks agreement as well as the law; Cyberheat/TopBucks may report me but they'll certainly cut me off.
Either way there's no fines or jail time involved or nomenclature enjoining legal consequences such as you suggested.
And your quotes and references are absolutely irrelevant here. Even if Cyberheat/TopBucks affiliates who signed the acknowledgement spammed anyway, Cyberheat/TopBucks would be exempted from reprisals.
The only way Cyberheat/TopBucks would be tainted is if said affiliates didn't sign the acknowledgement, spammed, and were still supported by Cyberheat/TopBucks.
No jail, no fines, no thing... irrelevancy won't buy the peanuts and popcorn to this three ring circus.