Re: SPAM from stockhunt needs to stop

["Bill Buckels" <bbuckels@mts.net>]

The last word? Perhaps. I am going to let this go for now.

See below and Good-day eh?

Bill

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Buckels" <bbuckels@mts.net>
To: "Keith Rosenbaum" <Keith@spectrumlawgroup.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: RE: Stockhunt now blocking my messages


WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Keith,

To begin with, I did not spam you and I am not a crusader and I hardly
threatened you. I only forwarded 60 of the approx. 1900 messages I am aware
of that the website that you administer initiated in the course of their
criminal activity as specimens for your review so you would understand the
immensity of this matter. Perhaps you and your client would rather each pay
a million and a half in fines and additionally each spend 2 years in jail.
Your choice of course. A judge would decide that and I am sure it would be
billable time for you.

A couple of hundred messages ended-up in my email and I would happy to
forward the rest.

Second I do not care for your latest "wounded lamb" position. Your client
made alot of people very angry and there is a great deal of discussion about
retaliation that has occurred as a result. I don't care for "weasel words"
although I do appreciate your tone when you become conciliatory. Good
writing style.

I am going to quote some excerpts from BILL S-235  and then leave it there
with you. I am delighted to advise you that there is no "reasonable"
explanation for your client's actions.

The spam seems to have stopped. If it restarts again I will strongly
consider ensuring that your client is brought to the attention of every
legal and regulatory body that I can think of including SEC for
investigation into unethical practices. A criminal conviction on SPAM
charges would make this a "slam dunk" I am pretty sure.

The SPAM is illegal. What I did with you is not SPAM (IT WAS NOT A
COMMERCIAL MESSAGE. GET IT? REFRAME!!!) and you came very close to really
making me angry with that comment, so I suggest that you modify your writing
style somewhat, since the best defence is not a good offence when people
like me who are well connected and have resources are not open to
"reasonable" solutions.  Let's just agree that your interest in your client
was well served and you stopped a destructive course. As far as doing me a
favour, I think I am doing your client a favour by not pursuing the other
recourses that I have at my disposal.

Excerpts from BILL S-235

"No person shall send or authorize the sending of a commercial electronic
message unless the recipient has consented to receiving the message."

"Every person who knows, or ought to know, that their trade, business,
property, goods or services are being or will be advertised or promoted in a
commercial electronic message sent contrary to section 8 or 11, and who
receives or expects to receive an economic benefit from the sending of the
message, shall take reasonable measures to prevent the sending of the
message and to report any contravention to an appropriate law enforcement
agency."

"A person who receives an economic benefit from the sending, by another
person, of a commercial electronic message that advertises or promotes the
trade, business, property, goods or services of the first-mentionned person
is presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have authorized
the sending of the message."

"If a person sends a commercial electronic message from any place and it is
received by another person in Canada, then, for the purposes of this Act,
the act of sending is deemed to have taken place in Canada."

"Every person who knowingly counsels, induces, aids or abets or attempts to
induce, aid or abet any person to contravene any of the provisions of this
Act or the regulations commits an offence and is liable to the same penalty
as that person."

"If a corporation commits an offence under this Act, any officer, director
or agent or mandatary of the corporation who directed, authorized, assented
to, acquiesced in or participated in the commission of the offence is a
party to, and guilty of, the offence and liable on conviction to the
punishment provided for the offence, whether or not the corporation has been
prosecuted or convicted."

"An individual who contravenes subsection 12(1), any of sections 13 to 16 or
a provision of any regulation made under this Act is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to a fine not exceeding $1,500,000 or
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both;"

"A telecommunications service provider may, upon giving reasonable notice,
refuse or cancel service or access to any person who has been convicted of
an offence under this Act or who sends commercial electronic messages that
the provider has reasonable grounds to believe are sent in contravention of
this Act."

"A commercial electronic message shall
(a) clearly and accurately identify the person who is sending or authorized
the sending of the message;

(b) contain readily-accessible and accurate header and routing information;
and

(c) include readily-accessible and accurate information as to how the
recipient of the message can easily contact the person who is sending or
authorized the sending of the message."

"No person shall send or authorize the sending of a commercial electronic
message if the person knows or ought to know that the electronic address to
which the message is sent was obtained
(a) using address-harvesting software;

(b) from a harvested-address list; or

(c) using an automated means that generates possible electronic addresses by
combining letters, numbers or symbols or a combination thereof."

I could go on and on...

Regards,

Bill Buckels