Yeah, right. The "judge" was a county magistrate who found the (california)
spammer guilty of "creating a nuiscance" in that county in Texas. (If the
spammer had bothered, they would have likely demonstrated that a Texas
County Magistrate has no jurisdiction in California) The spammer didn't
show, and Zilker won by default. In legal terms, this means the case
cannot be used as "case law" or as a precedent in other cases. In laymans
terms, it means that the case has no legal usefulness. It didn't prove
anything, and I don't think even now, a couple years later, that Zilker
ever collected anything, or ever will.
If a spammer can be sued for relaying, this particular case does not
demonstrate how to do it. Nor should it be used as an example where a
spammer was sued for money and lost. This does not mean there is no
recourse against relaying. Just that this particular approach isn't it.
This was a BS example a year and a half ago, when I pointed out its flaws
to you. Yet you keep using it even though you know its BS. The "Just keep
spewing" strategy seems to place limits your credibility.
--Dean