RH> If you have been "damaged" and the law is on your side, pursue.
 RH> However, your case just went out the window when the defendant shows up
 RH> with 164' of black thermal paper with your header on it.
                                .  .  .
 RH> You see, the individuals who are sending you FAXes do not have the
 RH> intent or motive of harming you, but of you purchasing their goods
 RH> and them buying groceries for the kiddos with the profit.
INTENT is meaningful to the Courts...and it is a _heavily weighed_ matter for
the Judges... Vigilante action is deemed as vile as any original criminal
activity with most Judges: few will tolerate any action outside of what
the law provides for under statute.
Any first-year Harvard Law School student would understand that in spades !
 RH> Maybe they haven't read PL 102-243.
A business that operates without knowing about (any) law that affects the
industry it engages in it not what I'd describe as "smart". Such a business
opens a Pandora Box situation from which "mystifying things" happen: out-of-
the-blue litigations may be one.
 RH> Maybe you could FAX *them* a copy.
That would be a kindness...and I would suggest, be in keeping with the image
of being "responsible".
 RH> Keep a file of those who have been 'informed' about the law. Repeat
 RH> offenders get to learn about "small claims court." (ie. a legal and
 RH> ethical route.)
Excellent suggestion ! And certainly more ethical than any `return' vigilante
action in the long run.
 
Semper Fi
RTP
~~~ PGPBLUE 3.0 
... Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.
---
---------------