As a sign of how busy my day job has been lately, I just realized that I posted virtually identical evidence, twice, without noticing. So you have my apologies. I think of the two postings as being supportive evidence anyway, and distinct enough that anyone reading them could most certainly draw enough conclusions about just how "legal" Nick Danger's background tends to be. That he would on the one hand compare himself and his like to Tony Soprano, and yet on the other hand still press on with some ridiculous legal action against spam-court, is wholly mystifying. I would hope that those in the legal community who stumble upon this would feel the same way.

He's also, of course, boasted very loudly about this on bulkerforum, which has been replied to with a barely-literate posting from someone named "lizza" claiming that spam-court is somehow childish for exposing this information. Fraud is not childish. Theft of services is not childish. Repeatedly spamming people who definitely do not want to hear from you: that's childish. Why spammers fail to recognize this is beyond me.

More as it happens.

SiL