Slashdot Mirror

I followed the link from the summary and saw this gem:

Your use of this site acknowledges that you waive for yourself, your client, and your employer any and all claim against Silverstein for any action that relating to this site. If you don't agree to this, leave this site immediately. Your use of this site signifies your acceptance of these terms in this paragraph and the terms of use for the_ site.

Now, after reading the "terms of service", I would not go so far as to claim that William Silverstein is a little piece of shit, since I have no conclusive proof that he is indeed a minuscule fragment of fecal matter, but I strongly urge /. readers to form their own opinions.

Note: this post is copyrighted material and any use of it is prohibited unless one of the following conditions is met:
1. A fee of US$1,000,000,000.00 is paid to me (in advance) by the user.
2. The user presents evidence that William Silverstein is a little piece of shit.
3. The user states under oath that "terms of use" like those on William Silverstein's site are idiotic bullshit with no legal merit whatsoever.

There's another trap linked in the original trap: http://barbieslapp.com/z-ads/trapper_2.shtml

Also some e-mail traps. He seems to be fishing for legal battles.

Link to the court-ordered judgement, please. I don't think you're following exactly what happened.

I'm starting to think you're trolling, as you're coming across as deliberately dense, but here ya go.

The owner of that website is either a drama queen or a troll. There's a space in the footer that links to this: http://barbieslapp.com/z-ads/trapper_1.htm

If I had had my morning coffee I could conjure the words to describe how ridiculous that is.

I have sued foreign spammers.

In 2003, I sued Global Web Promotions for their penis pill enlargement spam. Though Global Web was in Australia, they solicited business from California and caused harm in California.

See Snowney V. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., 35 Cal. 4th 1054 (2005) (Solicitation of California Residents) , Calder v. Jones, 465 US 783(1984) (Harm directed to California)

I am currently suing a porn organization, the third time, operated by David Szpak and Emmanuel Gurtler for illegal spamming. (See http://barbieslapp.com/spam/axscharge/axscharge.htm) The main companies are all located off-shore, the US companies were mere shells for the offshore companies. These guys hired Yambo (See http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/listing.lasso?file=880) to send spam for them. They created two new companies, just after I sued them the first time, but they claimed it was not to avoid my lawsuit but to avoid the Visa anti-fraud/chargeback detection mechanisms.

I have been suing spammers for a few years. Actually I sued the companies that were advertised the spammers, and paid the spammers. Some companies that have been sued have taken steps to terminate the 'affiliates' that were sending the spam.

Lately, it seems less effective. But, if more people started suing spammers, and the companies that hire them, that violate the law it dry up the marketplace for spammers.

One company, Deniro Marketing who runs amateurmatch.com, went as far as lying to the Court and then having the Wayback Machine delete any traces of the evidence when called on it.

Another company, I sued 3 times and obtained 3 default judgments, collected over $200k on the first two. Of course they claim that even though I seized money from the accounts, they didn't know anything about the lawsuits. Another person I know collected over $100k from them. Recently, in the last suit, the Defendants were able to vacate the judgment and be permitted to file an answer. I have seized several of their domain names to prevent them from selling them. Defendants counsel have been lying through their teeth and playing games -- but what can you expect from a spammer's lawyer.

I'll have to start putting up the details of this lawsuit. But I have details of the others on my web site.

--
http://www.barbieslapp.com/spam
So many spammers to sue, so little time.

Monday (4/7/2008), I had two motion hearings against e360. One was their summary judgment motion to kick their my case against them, the other was my anti-SLAPP motion against their counterclaim.

Entire details at http://www.barbieslapp.com/spam/e360/e360insight.htm

Their counterclaim is for calling libel (calling them a spammer and liar) and abuse of process (asking for their domain names in discovery). At the hearing struck/dismissed their abuse of process claim, and said that their paying my attorney fees for the motion is mandatory. The tentative did not strike the libel claim, but she said she would look into that further as the court needed to investigate if the supplemental request for judicial notice, containing articles quoting Linhardt in the press (Cnet and NY Times, DirectMag.com) is sufficient for limited purpose public figure status.

She denied their summary judgment motion on my claims against e360. Mostly because e360 refused to provide discovery to me, but relied upon that information in their motion. On the my libel claim against them, she denied that, except the portion saying that he implied that I hacked into his system.

I am suing e360Insight for illegal spamming. http://www.barbieslapp.com/spam/e360/e360insight.htm

In their failed summary judgment motion (asking the court to dismiss the case based on some evidence), they claim that the spam I tracked to them is not theirs, but it must be someone trying to make them look bad because: 1. They don't spam; 2. That it could have been created in a word processor using publically available information; 3. They don't format their e-mails that way; 4. That it did not come from their IP addresses.

e360 ignored that they have used Atriks, which hides the true IP address by running it through a sort of legal botnet. They also ignored that they use anonymous domain name registrations, so I must have been a good guesser to get most of the domain names correct (their co-Defendant, Moniker, admitted that most of the domain names I identified to e360 were registered through them to bargaindepot.net -- their sister company/codefendant).

Though the default judgment still stands, the trial court judge will have to look harder at any injunction and money damages -- not take Linhardt's word for it.

The reason for this is my case against him, at http://www.barbieslapp.com/spam/e360/timeline.htm , because in my case, I argued (and lost) personal juridiction of Linhardt, in part because he said (and the court believed it) that he had no business in California. I pointed out in his affadavit in the Spamhaus where he said "e360 and I lost contracts..." and "e60 and I lost business opportunities.." and that of the 7 companies listed, 4 are in California, he explained it away by saying that he really meant that when he said, e360 and I he meant e360 and I in my role as president. If you don't suffer harm personally, you have no standing to bring a lawsuit. I filed a motion for reconsideration, on Linhardt's personal jurisdiction, in part based on this.

Spamhaus's lawyers are aware of this.

I am the one who filed suit against E360Insight and Linhardt.

Courts already ruled that spammers can be sued where the spam is received (known as the effects test from Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 804 S. Ct. 1482). My successful brief agaainst a porn spammer is here.

Additionally, E360's sister business (http://www.bargaindepot.net) specifically programmed their web site to take orders from California (via drop down lists).

I don't think that any motion by them saying that there is no jurisdiction over them in Califonia, but they have jurisdiction over Spamhaus in the UK will pass either the smell test or the laugh test.

Except for the fact that Goldfarb was under oath, meaning he goes to jail if he gets caught lying.

There is a difference between a valid judgment and an enforcable judgment.

The I have not seen the complaint, but I suspect that the complaint makes the allegation that Spamhaus transmits the data into the judisdiction, causing the harm in the jurisdiction -- thus subject to that jurisdiction.

I won the same argument against TJ Web for their spamming.

If it is correct that UK will not enforce a foreign default judgment, then spamhaus is safe unless they have assets that the Plaintiff finds out about. Remember the Dmitry Sklyarov? He just happened to be in the USA when he was arrested for supposed crimes committed while in Russia.

But it leads to an arms race that will never end. Where do you stop? It's funny now, but what happens when you interfere with people's need to find information they're looking for? For example, what if I told the world that

hot gay sex was associated with your site?

In litigating with spammers the first response is, "it is not us." I had one spammer try blame it on competitors and anti-spammers, but there was no offer of proof. Though this is different since liability for spam is not only on the person who presses "send" but also on the advertised site.

The "somebody else did it" defense is common. But, what proof has been presented to support it?

Here, we have not seen what evidence has been presented (in a summary judgment motion or motion to dismiss).

They didn't just take away his stuff. They took away his stuff, to then copy it onto network storage. Then copy the drives onto otpical media. Then copy it onto hard drives. All while leaving the originals unmodified. Then they will analyze the data to gather evidence.

It would be real sweet to know the domains that they used so that every spam victim can file suit against Ralsky and Bradley. We can take out spammers with distributed lawsuits. A spammer can survive 1,2 or maybe 10 lawsuits, but can they survive 100? I, with help, took out Avtech.

I tracked down a big time ink spammer, going under the name of payless inks, top quality inks, inks on sale. I posted the strings to search for on my spam page so that any spam victim can file suit. If you file suit, contact me and I'd be happy to serve the summons and complaint.

They didn't just take away his stuff. They took away his stuff, to then copy it onto network storage. Then copy the drives onto otpical media. Then copy it onto hard drives. All while leaving the originals unmodified. Then they will analyze the data to gather evidence.

It would be real sweet to know the domains that they used so that every spam victim can file suit against Ralsky and Bradley. We can take out spammers with distributed lawsuits. A spammer can survive 1,2 or maybe 10 lawsuits, but can they survive 100? I, with help, took out Avtech.

I tracked down a big time ink spammer, going under the name of payless inks, top quality inks, inks on sale. I posted the strings to search for on my spam page so that any spam victim can file suit. If you file suit, contact me and I'd be happy to serve the summons and complaint.

They didn't just take away his stuff. They took away his stuff, to then copy it onto network storage. Then copy the drives onto otpical media. Then copy it onto hard drives. All while leaving the originals unmodified. Then they will analyze the data to gather evidence.

It would be real sweet to know the domains that they used so that every spam victim can file suit against Ralsky and Bradley. We can take out spammers with distributed lawsuits. A spammer can survive 1,2 or maybe 10 lawsuits, but can they survive 100? I, with help, took out Avtech.

I tracked down a big time ink spammer, going under the name of payless inks, top quality inks, inks on sale. I posted the strings to search for on my spam page so that any spam victim can file suit. If you file suit, contact me and I'd be happy to serve the summons and complaint.

Murray passed the California anti-spam law which provided $1,000 for each spam (until the scum passed the CAN-SPAM, law). Now, the law provides for $1,000 per spam that uses a deceptive header. I, working with a few others put one the Avtech Direct spammers out of business with 20 small claims court actions.

The criminal laws still exist for identity theft, fraud, etc. OJ was set free on his criminal trial, but found liable in the civil trial.

In some states (USA) there are anti-SLAPP statutes that permit a defendant to dismiss quickly and receive attorney fees and costs.

The anti-SLAPP motion (generally) requires the case be brought as a result of a right to petition (ie. complaint to a court or government) or an issue of public concern and that there is not a great likelyhood of success. For more information go to www.casp.net or http://www.barbieslapp.com./
SLAPP stands for Strategic lawsuit against public participation.

In some states (USA) there are anti-SLAPP statutes that permit a defendant to dismiss quickly and receive attorney fees and costs.

The anti-SLAPP motion (generally) requires the case be brought as a result of a right to petition (ie. complaint to a court or government) or an issue of public concern and that there is not a great likelyhood of success. For more information go to www.casp.net or http://www.barbieslapp.com./
SLAPP stands for Strategic lawsuit against public participation.

Far fetched? George Moore aka Dr. Fatburn tried this approach by filing criminal charges.

Having over a million spams a day should make easy to find some spammers that can be tracked and sued. With that volume, it may be easy to find an attorney that can do it on contigency.

Second, criminalising spam (or bankrupting spammers through civil suits) will only drive spammers to work outside the reach of the US courts. While US spammers can reasonably be expected to evolve over time to collaborate with their host society, foreign spammers don't have any incentive to (e.g.) refuse to promote child snuff porn.

The FTC also went after them (after seeing my suit), and froze their assets in Canada.

There is power in numbers. That is why I post the information on spammers, so that others can sue.

By sharing information and working with others to sue spammers, we can put a dent in spam.

It felt real good when I handed them the 20 complaints in the other cases.

Use the laws to file a lawsuit against the spammers that spam or the people who hire the spammers. Spamming is motivated by profit, lawsuits against spamers will remove that motivation.

I got spammed by Avtech Direct. I sent a demand letter, they were nasty in their response. I filed a lawsuit against them, and arranged for 15 other people to file lawsuits. When they appeared in court against me, I served them with the 20 other lawsuits. So far, only 5 of 21 cases were heard, they have over $11,000 in judgments against them. I have not seen any spam from them since.

Many countries have signed the Hague Convention which include the rules on cross border enforcement of civil judgments.

1) The law can't touch us.

Being in a foreign country only makes it more difficult -- not impossible.

Even though spam may be international, the foreign companies can be sued. When you send spam into the USA (or the particular state) you are subject to the laws of the USA. After I sued Global Web promotions, the FTC sued them and siezed their funds. Even though they are in Australia, they are doing business here by sending spam.

Even though spam may be international, the foreign companies can be sued. When you send spam into the USA (or the particular state) you are subject to the laws of the USA. After I sued Global Web promotions, the FTC sued them and siezed their funds. Even though they are in Australia, they are doing business here by sending spam.

The US can enforce our laws in other countries where there is a treaty that permits it. The FTC has gone after Global Web Promotions in Australia. The FTC was aided by the Australian authorities.

It is now always true, I filed a suit against Avtech Direct and they are still spamming me.

Maybe when the sheriff comes into their offices and takes all their computers to auction -- to pay the $50,000 in judgments from all the lawsuits pending against them), they may stop.

By allowing a private right of action for individuals, you get some of the smaller-time spammers.

There is one spammer, AVTech Direct (Avtech Direct 22647 Ventura Blvd. Suite 374 Woodland Hills, CA 91364), that I and about 10 others filed suit against for spamming. A $5000 small claims judgement won't get them, but if they had 100 or 1000 judgments for $5,000 each for spamming, they may not spam anymore.

Of course with me, Mattel learned their lesson, as they didn't say a word about Mattelabuse.com or BarbieSLAPP.com.
But, they didn't learn their lesson before they were ordered to pay $1.8 million to a photographer that they sued for using the Barbie image.

See Also:
SLAPP (extended definition)
Slapp-back

Under California law, Penal Code 502 prevents his from installing unauthorized software.

Remember the guy in Georgia who installed SETI or some other software like that on the University Systems getting charged for doing that since he had no authorization?

The FTC has the power to take action against companies that act in a deceptive manner. They are not only going after GWP
but, also for selling penis enlargment pills that don't work.

After Mattel filed suit, Mattel and MCA employees traded barbs in the press. When an MCA spokeswoman noted that each album included a disclaimer saying that Barbie Girl was a "social commentary [that was] not created or approved by the makers of the doll," a Mattel representative responded by saying, "That's unacceptable. . . . It's akin to a bank robber handing a note of apology to a teller during a heist. [It n]either diminishes the severity of the crime, nor does it make it legal." He later characterized the song as a "theft" of "another company's property."

MCA filed a counterclaim for defamation based on the Mattel representative's use of the words "bank robber," "heist," "crime" and "theft." But all of these are variants of the invective most often hurled at accused infringers, namely "piracy." No one hearing this accusation understands intellectual property owners to be saying that infringers are nautical cutthroats with eyepatches and peg legs who board galleons to plunder cargo. In context, all these terms are nonactionable "rhetorical hyperbole," Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 863 (9th Cir. 1999). The parties are advised to chill.

In addition to the last sentence (which I never thought I'd see in a legal brief), the interesting thing about this is that they consider "piracy" and "theft" of copyrights to be popular invective with no legal bearing (thus, not actionable as defamation because courts shouldn't consider such statements literally).

I've heard the 9th circuit is weird, though, and that other courts like to disagree with them. Seems to be weird in a good way...

It is not free speech. This was ruled with junk faxes, because they shift the cost of advertising to the recipient.

I sued a porn spammer and going after more spammer.

Actually, Symantec has tracked down the person as selling the illegal copies of their stuff, Dr. Fatburn aka George Alan Moore and filed a lawsuit against him. AOL has also filed a lawsuit against him for using their servers.

I was about to file a lawsuit against him for spamming me, but figured that after AOL and Symantec finished with him, there would be nothing left.

According to sorehands, it is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Essentially, it is when a company sues you so they can silence you because you are saying things which, while true, would hurt their reputation. Sorehands says it is illegal. I say if it is not it should be, because using lawsuits to stop competition or to silence people warning about the danger of a company's products (or their terrible business practices) is definitely an abuse of teh process. It is too bad our courts are clogged with crap like this; it stops legitemate claimants from obtaining justice.

What's wrong, he could he not do the physical world equivelent of clicking the unsubscribe link?

Even in states with anti-SLAPP statutes there is still a cost in defending it. The anti-SLAPP statutes provide costs of defense as damages against the SLAPPer, but that does not deter large SLAPPers from abusing the courts.

Mattel, SLAPP terrorists intent on destroying free speech.

I did. But, I took on Mattel and won, and will win again. I read his brief and the docket, it reminds me of a guy I used to work for. He thinks he was such a great legal mind, but he is a joke and an idiot. Before he was criminally convicted, he threatened the Assistant District Attorney.

New York has an anti-SLAPP statute. I wonder why this was not used to kick out the case.

Some of these fights have to be taken and some of these SLAPPERs have to be hit with large enough damages to make others think long and hard before bringing another SLAPP action.

You self-riteous dickhead. Of course .gov gets filtered out by anyone with half a clue.

I also forward the Copy any DVD spam to the MPAA.

Mattel v. Free Speech

Mattel tries to take down site about computer injuries.

So, this only holds true with a focused sites. Using links, but then checking the links based on text would be useful, but not just links alone.