The following error was encountered:

* Connection Failed

The system returned:

(61) Connection refused

The remote host or network may be down. Please try the request again.
Generated Mon, 18 Sep 2006 08:53:53 GMT by http://www.spamhaus.org (squid/2.5.STABLE12)

Which raises the question, did the judge not know that? After all, an unenforceable sentence is nothing more than a waste of time and people’s legal expenses money.

That aside, we musk ask why do the courts allow sentences to go unenforced?

In my case, we have a final sentence of #300,000 plus attorney fees of about $80,000 against RIAA member record company Sonolux. Sonolux made 16 and distributed them in the USA from their Florida office, all without our authorization (we own the copyright to songs). With interests, Sonolux owes us about $500,000, and the owner is a billionaire who singlehandedly employs 27,000 person, in Colombia,

Sonolux skipped town but still sell records, including the infringing ones through many USA dealers in the Internet.
See this page:

http://www.bestprices.com/cgi-bin/vlink/musiclabels/cds-by-recordlabel-Sonolux.html

Here we ask the 1/2 million $ question: Why the amrican courts allow their sentences to go blatanly unenforced? Is it all a game playing circus where the not connected (we are not members of RIAA) always loose.

Of course, it is more incredible considering that kids are sued for sharing a (unproven) few music files by RIAA members, who in turn are the worst pirates there are, proven in our case agaisnt RIAA’s Sonolux and in our yet ongoing lawsuit against RIAA’s Sony for producing 24 cd’s with our songs, all without authorization.

More details in my web page.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

Why would “UK authorities” do that, anyway? Because of some minor court’s order in another country?

http://www.spamhaus.org/