Slashdot Mirror

Bennett Haselton has documented several examples. The incident based upon which he filed a formal complaint against Judge Jorgensen is the most egregious example.

/CF

Bennett Haselton has documented several examples. The incident based upon which he filed a formal complaint against Judge Jorgensen is the most egregious example.

/CF

Bennett Haselton has documented several examples. The incident based upon which he filed a formal complaint against Judge Jorgensen is the most egregious example.

/CF

Bennett Haselton has documented several examples. The incident based upon which he filed a formal complaint against Judge Jorgensen is the most egregious example.

/CF

Bennett Haselton has documented several examples. The incident based upon which he filed a formal complaint against Judge Jorgensen is the most egregious example.

/CF

• He delegitimizes spam-fighting cases by attempting to ridicule judges with his website, judgejokes.com. This is even more instrumental than it seems:
  • It is registered by his censor-fighting organization, Peacefire. Because making fun of judges is totally a worthwhile project for an organization as such.
    
  • It documents both his solicitation of other spammers, and lack of understanding of the law.
• He's worked on filter-circumvention software, which made news years ago. A direct quote from that site: "That software, Haselton and the IBB acknowledge, could have other uses here at home".
  
• He spams Slashdot with countless articles that could be summarized to 1-to-2 lines (and often are by comments shortly after being posted). A few of these are linked as related articles above.
  
• He takes huge issue any time that any of his emails aren't received. This article is evidence enough.
  
• And a few other things. I know I'm forgetting many. Anyone else want to step in?
  

• He delegitimizes spam-fighting cases by attempting to ridicule judges with his website, judgejokes.com. This is even more instrumental than it seems:
  • It is registered by his censor-fighting organization, Peacefire. Because making fun of judges is totally a worthwhile project for an organization as such.
    
  • It documents both his solicitation of other spammers, and lack of understanding of the law.
• He's worked on filter-circumvention software, which made news years ago. A direct quote from that site: "That software, Haselton and the IBB acknowledge, could have other uses here at home".
  
• He spams Slashdot with countless articles that could be summarized to 1-to-2 lines (and often are by comments shortly after being posted). A few of these are linked as related articles above.
  
• He takes huge issue any time that any of his emails aren't received. This article is evidence enough.
  
• And a few other things. I know I'm forgetting many. Anyone else want to step in?
  

Don't be - you can't tell. All we know is that he thinks the law about it is a waste of court resources. Indeed, chances are that a lot of judges feel this way, and are none too enamoured of the people who keep bringing these cases in the first place... and when Mr Haselton publicly castigates a judge who found in his favour for "making a mistake", whilst not only being forced to admit that he hadn't read the reference on which the judge based his decision but displaying no evidence of having read it since, let alone a convincing refutation - they might reasonably conclude that he doesn't have the kind of respect for the judicial system that would endear it to him in return. An opinion that would be somewhat strengthened by this kind of stunt, it must be said.

He's probably cooked his goose now, and possibly the goose of anyone else with a similar grievance; but anyone wishing to follow in Mr Haselton's footsteps might have more success if they displayed more tact towards the custodians of a system they'd like to be well-disposed to them. After all, if someone asked you to settle an issue and started their request with "I know you're a lazy incompetent asshat who won't give me a fair hearing, but...", would you want to find in their favour if you could possibly avoid it, no matter how strong their case or just their cause?

Interesting idea, but I must say that it is poorly done -- for the sole reason of the person "booby-trapping" the motions. Reading around on the linked sites from TFA, it's quite apparent that this guy has been doing the same shit for years.

IANAL, and I'm near-certain HINAL either. That being said, the example of his "sting operation" (which he seems quite proud of) is a great one. It seems that he believes the spammers came to him with an offer by spamming him. Sure, I'll grant him that spam is annoying. Sure, Joe Spies should rot. Yes, Joe lied in court; However Bennett still initiated the contact with FullServicesOnline seeking to "purchase" spam. In my understanding it's still entrapment, whether or not someone else has used the same system against him.

I can't recall where exactly, but somewhere this d-bag mentioned that "it's not like his claims are all the same". What about this page? And in all honesty, how different can the motions be when they're all coming off as "I am on a crusade against spam!"

So basically, this guy just reminds me of Michael Crook, with a slightly better means. Bennett is an attention-whore, using his (misinterpreted) views of the law to try and "crack down on spammers" ultimately (it seems) to get mentioned in the news. He's a 28-yr-old programming contractor, upset that he hasn't amounted to anything more. Get over it, grow up, stop haranguing the judges and judicial system, and for the love of god stop posting self-publicizing crap to /. Seriously, if I were a judge I would just dismiss this guy's motions straight off myself as well.

Interesting idea, but I must say that it is poorly done -- for the sole reason of the person "booby-trapping" the motions. Reading around on the linked sites from TFA, it's quite apparent that this guy has been doing the same shit for years.

IANAL, and I'm near-certain HINAL either. That being said, the example of his "sting operation" (which he seems quite proud of) is a great one. It seems that he believes the spammers came to him with an offer by spamming him. Sure, I'll grant him that spam is annoying. Sure, Joe Spies should rot. Yes, Joe lied in court; However Bennett still initiated the contact with FullServicesOnline seeking to "purchase" spam. In my understanding it's still entrapment, whether or not someone else has used the same system against him.

I can't recall where exactly, but somewhere this d-bag mentioned that "it's not like his claims are all the same". What about this page? And in all honesty, how different can the motions be when they're all coming off as "I am on a crusade against spam!"

So basically, this guy just reminds me of Michael Crook, with a slightly better means. Bennett is an attention-whore, using his (misinterpreted) views of the law to try and "crack down on spammers" ultimately (it seems) to get mentioned in the news. He's a 28-yr-old programming contractor, upset that he hasn't amounted to anything more. Get over it, grow up, stop haranguing the judges and judicial system, and for the love of god stop posting self-publicizing crap to /. Seriously, if I were a judge I would just dismiss this guy's motions straight off myself as well.

He mentions how he got around this with Judge Nault, where the brief was scanned by the courthouse. He planted a key phrase in the brief (that would probably piss off the judge if he actually read it), then asked an ambiguous question during the hearing to see if the judge understands. The judge doesn't.

From the brief:

Next time I'm in court I'll ask about a word to make sure you read this motion all the way through, and the word is computer.

After that motion was denied, he asks the same judge at his next court appearance:

BENNETT HASELTON: So what was the word on that other motion?
JUDGE NAULT: The other one, I just said I would review it...

If the judge had actually read the brief, the response would instead have been, "Oh, about that. I'm going to grind you into salt for that, you little bastard." So it's clear that the judge did not read the brief.

In an earlier comment, Mr. Haselton posted a transcript of the hearing here. If you read it, you'll find the story isn't quite as clear cut as he makes it out to be.

Now, I agree that the accused was probably a spammer and should have punished for his crimes, but Mr. Haselton did NOT argue his case very well. I think the dismissal of the claims was more a result of Mr. Haseltons poor presentation than anything else. He was not particularly organized, presented too much irrelevant information and had a poor flow. It is true that the judge interrupted him a number of times, but IMO it was simply to make Mr. Haselton get to the point.

At the beginning of his presentation, Mr. Haselton did not clearly explain the technical details. I'm still not quite sure what bulletproof-hosting is and why it makes the spammer liable for damages. It appears the judge felt the same way. Second, Mr. Haselton's evidence wasn't particularly compelling since he didn't produce the tape, nor did he produce the disclaimer. That might be irrelevant to the case (IANAL) but the judge clearly wanted it.

I don't want to be hard on Mr. Haselton since he's not a lawyer, but it appears that he lost due to a poorly argued case rather than judicial corruption and incompetence. As an aside, this proves why people hire lawyers in the first place; they know how to present information in a logical and clear manner, and know what the judge is looking for.

If you read the summary and follow the link to the Motion to reconsider (http://www.judgejokes.com/motion-to-reconsider.y3 4566.10-6-2003.doc), it directly references the played version of the recording not including the disclaimer made at the beginning of the call that the call would be monitored/recorded [presumably very similar to the stock recording we've all heard on tech support lines]. As such, and assuming we believe the motion to the Judge made by the submitter to be factual, then there's an opt-in agreement by the second party to recording since they were informed that this would take place.

The full list of the test cases with the judges' names is at:
http://www.judgejokes.com/booby-trapped-filings.ht ml
Although, the judicial elections are over and most of them don't come up for re-election again until 2006...

Besides, part of my point was that all of the existing safeguards -- elections, appeals, a commission for investigating complaints -- are already there, and weren't enough to prevent this from happening. What would be enough? I don't know. I am moving on to federal court to try my luck there. But I feel bad for all the people who are forced to go to district court, for criminal matters and serious family issues like child custody.

You really should listen to the audio [MP3] of the Judge. He sounds pretty irate and unprofessional (which is his prerogative, I suppose).

I didn't get into this level of detail in the article because I already had to trim it so much (yes, what you're looking at is the *trimmed* version :) ). However, I had the spammer call me on a special phone number where the first thing they hear is a recording saying "Thank you for calling blah blah blah company. Due to company policy, calls may be monitored or recorded." Then the caller presses 1. When they press 1, it rings through to my home phone with a special ring. There is no blah blah company, of course; the whole thing is just set up to catch people if I expect them to perjure themselves in court.

The full details are at the link given in the story:
http://www.judgejokes.com/karlie-jorgensen.html

Without that disclaimer, you would have been correct though.

...is the opinion of the judge in this mp3. Listen to it starting at 3:25. Though I'll probably got modded a troll for this post, I think Judge Nault makes some good points in that audio. It's worth listening to with an open mind.

oh gee you're no fun what you do is ask for their name and company and a call back number then since you are in 47cfr64.1200 mode then you tell them its a cell phone you are on (and oh btw remove me from your list NOW) just for chapter and verse http://www.judgejokes.com/47-cfr-64.1200-formatted .html if you have the time to burn waste theirs!