Judge Rules That I Own Slashdot

Bennett Haselton wrote in with this weeks amusing and shocking story of high finance, judicial discretion, and oh so much more... he writes "People still ask me if I make enough money suing spammers in Small Claims court to make it worthwhile. I say: What about the entertainment value? Recently I received an e-mail with the subject line: 'Reminder: Link exchange with your site http://slashdot.org' Finally, I thought, someone else who agrees that I'm carrying the site's entire success on my shoulders. I even hurried off to check the registration of the slashdot.org domain to see if they had made the transfer official in honor of my contributions, but apparently the domain is still being squatted by some outfit calling itself "SourceForge"." I'm shocked that a legitimate businessman would make such an error. Read on to see what Bennett does about it.

So I returned to the e-mail, which began, "Dear Webmaster". Scrolling through it, I found the part that I was looking for (I munged the sender's URL slightly, to avoid crashing the poor guy's server from all the traffic I'm sure he's already getting):

As you know, reciprocal linking benefits both of us by raising our search rankings and generating more traffic to both of our sites. Please post a link to my site as follows:

Title: Work At Home Business Opportunities | Online Career Training
URL: http://www.theeashblahblah.com/
Description: Your Source, and Resource for starting a Home Business, or Growing the One You're In.

Of course I am always interested in growing the business that I'm in, which is why I served him with papers a few days later under RCW 19.190, the Washington anti-spam law which prohibits e-mails with a "false or misleading subject line".

OK, technically at this point suing spammers in Small Claims is really more of a hobby. I still think that the real future of spammer-suing is in federal court, if you can amass enough damages against a particular company to reach the threshold of $75,000 to bring a federal lawsuit. The idea is not to go after the bottom-feeders who are sending the actual spams from their Mom's basement, but to follow the money and see who is ultimately buying the leads. You can respond to mortgage spams by entering a drop-box phone number and a made-up name, waiting to see who calls you, and then telling them that the person who sold them that lead is generating them illegally and that they shouldn't buy leads from them any more. Next I'll probably try responding to some ads for pills or other shady products by using a temporary one-time-use credit card number that's only authorized up to the amount of the purchase, to see which companies are doing the sales on the back end. (The checkout forms for those pill-hawking pages rarely say the name of the company that will end up on your statement, but the charge on your card has to be from someone.) The only types of spam I can think of where "following the money" wouldn't work, would be pump-and-dump stock spams -- in that case, the beneficiary could be anyone holding stock in the company. The SEC can freeze trading in stocks that are promoted in pump-and-dump but it's still no guarantee of catching the guilty party -- even someone who buys a lot of the company might just be an "innocent" third party who knows it's a scam but hopes to cash in on the price spike (although FAQs suggest that this strategy doesn't work). But for other types of spam, it's already been well documented how you can track it to the financiers without even trying to identify the actual person who pressed "Send".

Of course there's another reason why you'd rather be in federal court. Small Claims anti-spammer cases may not shed a lot of light on the economics behind spam, but they are instructive for what to expect if you ever appear before a District Court judge for any other reason. In this trial, heard by Judge Judith Eiler on November 5, 2007, the defendant telephoned in to the court hearing and said several times that this was a "personal e-mail from me to him" and should be exempt from the anti-spam laws. I said that I didn't think an e-mail with the subject "Link exchange with your site http://slashdot.org" could be considered "personal" since nobody who knew me would think that was my website, and in any case, personal e-mails tend not to start with "Dear Webmaster". But Judge Eiler ruled that this was a personal e-mail after all:

"Um, spam, these are anti-spam laws, which imply that they are mail just sent out in huge bulks, which would be the antithesis of a personal e-mail. And here he puts his name, in fact this is the person that you directly sued rather than somebody that's in a corporation or a company. The court does think that there's some indication that this is a personal-type e-mail. While it may have gone out to a number of people, it doesn't have quite the earmarks."
mp3 here

Below is a copy of the e-mail that the judge was holding when she ruled that it "didn't have the earmarks" of a bulk e-mail:

To: bennett@peacefire.org Subject: Reminder: Link exchange with your site http://slashdot.org X-PHP-Script: www.theeashblahblah.com/linkmachine/auto.php for 87.102.22.100 Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:34:26 -0400 From: Roderick Eash Reply-to: reash@tconl.com Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: PHPMailer [version 1.72] Errors-To: reash@tconl.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="b1_b43cabef83c9f9123db7a78ef9a73362" Dear Webmaster, My name is Roderick Eash, and I run the web site Work At Home Business Opportunities | Online Career Training: http://www.theeashblahblah.com/ The other day I wrote you to let you know I'm very interested in exchanging links. I'm sending this reminder in case you didn't receive my first letter. I've gone ahead and posted a link to your site, on this page: http://www.theeashblahblah.com/linkmachine/resources/resources_home_based_business_41.html As you know, reciprocal linking benefits both of us by raising our search rankings and generating more traffic to both of our sites. Please post a link to my site as follows: Title: Work At Home Business Opportunities | Online Career Training URL: http://www.theeashblahblah.com/ Description: Your Source, and Resource for starting a Home Business, or Growing the One You're In. Once you've posted the link, let me know the URL of the page that it's on, by entering it in this form: http://www.theeashblahblah.com/linkmachine/resources/link_exchange.php?ua=_ua9&site_index=MTg4MTgwMjc%3D You can also use that form to make changes to the text of the link to your site, if you'd like. Thank you very much, Roderick Eash

Every time I write about a spam case, I swear it's the last time. I wonder if judges read that and say to each other, "I'll bet we can get him to do it again." With this ruling, if the subject line "Link exchange with your site http://slashdot.org" is not "false or misleading", does that mean I can claim slashdot.org as my site after all?

So I don't think that suing spammers in Small Claims will make much difference in the long run. But the odds are that you might have a case come before a Distict Court judge at some point in your life. Consider that the same type of judge who thought the message above was a "personal e-mail", might someday be deciding whether you're responsible for $10,000 in damage to someone's car, or whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you were guilty of rape, or whether you get to keep custody of your child. There's no joke here, just something I thought you should keep in mind.

So I'm hardly a victim, but it could have been worse; I could have gotten a spam -- excuse me, a personal e-mail -- with a subject like "Your g1rl says you n3ed a b1gger m3mber". I would have been pissed if the judge had ruled that subject line was not misleading.

Comments

Re:I'm probably wrong, but...

[poot_rootbeer]

many judges he deals with would rather discard the case on some technicality than enforce the law.

I'm with the judge on this one, though.

The headers of the email show Haselton's address as the sole recipient, and no other messages were offered into evidence from the same sender to other recipients, demonstrating a pattern of spamming behavior.

There was no evidence presented that the message was anything other than one individual sending one other individual a personal message based on some incorrect information.

He didn't prove it was spam, so he lost. That's not a technicality, it's the fundamental tenet that a litigant must be able to prove their allegations.

Judges.

[RingDev]

The point is Judges will rule on what they know, regardless of the facts and laws at hand.

For example, earlier this year I had to go to court over a child support issue. My wife and I were not married when our son was born. Rest assured I was a dutiful father and paid for our housing, food, and as much of the related medical expenses as I could, but we were dirt poor. So we took advantage of a State aide plan to help single mothers afford proper child birthing care. My wife's insurance covered most of her costs, but 0% of the child's. So, three years later, we're married and happily raising our son, when I get a bill out of the blue for $2000. Apparently, my wife was suing me for child support and the State was nice enough to step in and help her with the lawsuit.

So after the usual pre-trial rituals, and a lot of research, I presented the Judge with a series of marriage and Tax laws that showed that regardless of our marital state at the time of childbirth, in our current situation, the State was limited in it's ability to collect.

The judge said, and I quote, "I am not familiar with those laws, so I am going to rule on the one I know." And summarily ordered me to pay $1600 to the State. Maybe a lawyer could have argued it better, but when they Judge just flat out told me that nothing I could present him with would be considered in his decision, I kinda lost hope and just paid the damn bill.

So in closing, 2 points:
1) Most Judges will take the easiest path available to make it through the 9-5. Even if it means ignoring the obvious.
2) If you are about to have a child out of wedlock in Wisconsin and you are receiving state benefits, get married. Regardless of whether you intend to stay married or not. Get the license, have the kid and flip the State the bird as they foot the bill and get to ask for a dime back. (note: this is not legal advice!)

-Rick

Re:Judges.

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

The point is Judges will rule on what they know, regardless of the facts and laws at hand.

Indeed. Based on what I read from various posts, you seem to be one of the very very few people here who "gets it". People, I'm going to tell you how the legal system works in the USA. Your experience in another country may be completely different. I know attorneys. My best friend is one. I've actually served on a jury - twice in fact. The vast majority of attorneys, as in 99% of them, don't understand technology at all. I am not kidding when I tell you that most attorneys AOL type (l)users. You would really be shocked at how ignorant most attorneys are of the PC world. It's not that they are all stupid - they just don't care, not even a little, to know about how it works. It's not really important to their jobs to know the ins and outs of technology. Judges come from attorneys. So it's not surprising that a judge doesn't much about spam.

I've got more bad news for you. Most people on juries are no better and usually worse about technology than attorneys. I've been on juries where the people on them might not have ever, not once in their life, downloaded anything, legal or not. You have people on juries who know nothing about PCs deciding cases involving PCs and you act surprised when it doesn't turn out as you, with your technology background, expected.

Re:Judges.

[Achromatic1978]

Or a big news recent case in Australia.

Man and woman divorce, man paying child support for his two children. All well and good.

Woman meets other man. They marry, she gets pregnant.

She reports this to the Child Support Agency. "Can't work, pregnant, ability to generate income diminished."

The CSA responds by upping the first man's child support. Apparently it is his financial obligation to support the decision of his ex-wife to voluntarily lower her income, and his responsibility to support her decision to have a family with another man.

Even more fun is when the child is born, and CSA again raises his child support, because "the costs of raising a three child family are greater". Uhh, what?

Re:Judges.

[theMerovingian]

Hey there's alot to be said for just having the balls to get up there and represent yourself. I originally went to law school because I was mad at AT&T for double-billing me for a cell phone and turning me over to a collections agency for not paying it.

$75k in tuition and three years of my life to get out of a $600 phone bill, but what the heck :)

A bit of advice on legal writing. Each paragraph should look like this:

State your conclusion.
State the rule/law your conclusion is based on.
Talk about other cases that have ruled on the same issue.
Talk about how your case is similar/different from that case.
Restate your conclusion.

Example: Dave battered Bob, resulting in serious head trauma. Battery is defined as harmful or offensive touching without consent. State law title ___ section ___. In the case of Scooby v. Shaggy, Shaggy struck Scooby on the head multiple times with a dog biscuit. Scooby v. Shaggy ____. The appellate court ruled that forcible head trauma with a processed snack food was both harmful and offensive, and upheld the battery verdict on appeal. Id. In the instant case Dave snuck up on Bob and bludgeoned him with a wet noodle. The attack in both instances was perpetrated with a carbohydrate-based weapon, and resulted in substantially similar injuries. Therefore, Bob should recover applicable damages from Dave under a battery cause of action.

Just use that structure, flesh it out a little bit, and add in the correct citations. Make sure that you have a legal citation for every source of authority you use.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, there is no formation of attorney client privilege, this does not serve as an offer to represent you, your family, or anyone you have ever met, consult the advice of a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before taking any action, the forgoing is for informational and educational purposes only, and any and all warranties inherent in this post whether express or implied are hereby disclaimed.

Re:Judges.

[RingDev]

My sentiment exactly. But if you look at the paperwork, or even the State's online court system, it all shows up as my wife suing me.

-Rick

Re:Judges.

[TheLink]

If she didn't actually want to sue you or initiate the action, they should be sued for fraud etc.

Basically they're getting money and misrepresenting it.

And your wife could sue them if she's actually still friendly with you and accuse them of trying to break up the marriage etc.

Get a good lawyer or something :).

Legal Advice

[RingDev]

Yeah, I should have qualified that better. It is not legal advice, it is an idle suggestion for action based on the heavily scewed experiences of a bitter and disallusioned young man.

Real legal advice would be more like: Research your State's family, child services, and medicare laws and determine if it is in your best interest to wed prior to your child's birth. Make sure you ask about recoupment, the fathers role, and all parties liability after the fact.

In the State of Wisconsin though, you're pretty much screwed. Hell, for a 1 time assistance fee that I paid back, I am now on the State's list of un-wed fathers, and due to State and Federal laws, my name can not come off that list until my son is 18. So yeah, I'm just a touch annoyed.

-Rick

Re:Legal Advice

[plague3106]

Perhaps you may think the judge erred, but this is my opinion. Who knows, maybe the judge would agree with me.

You and your wife were screwing the state (i.e., your neighbors whose taxes pay for welfare) by getting her "single mother" assistance when in fact the father WAS there providing the for kid the whole time. So instead of a real single mom getting help, you got it instead.

Rightfully, the state goes after the father for support of that kid. You have to pay back the money you screwed them out of (although I suspect your wife got much more than the $1600 you had to pay).

Re:Legal Advice

[RingDev]

Ehh, no one got screwed. This was NOT welfare. This is a medicade program, a 1 time assistance system set up to help single mothers give birth.

We were both military vets, so I had my health care through the VA. Her mother worked at the University, so she had coverage under her mother's insurance until she either turned 25 or got married. I was working 3/4 time as an LTE for the state and was in-elligable for benefits until my son was 3 months old. And my wife was unemployed at the time (full time student wrapping up a BS in agronomy, she banked money in the farming seasons and lived on savings over the winter).

So long as we did not get married, my wife was covered under her mothers insurance. So most of the pre-natal care was covered, I picked up the deductables.

As soon as my son was born, he was covered under the Healthy Start program in Wisconsin, which covers all children.

So the ONLY part of the entire process that was covered by the State was the actual birthing. Which I believe the total bill to Medicare (or Medicade, I can't recall which program any more) was about $3000.

Now, you may think that we just 'screwed' the State for 3k. But look at the alternative. Had my wife married as soon as we found out she was pregnant, she would have lost her insurance. We would have had to have turned to the State for 100% of the prenatal, birthing, and post-natal care expenses. And better yet, since we were a good married couple and poor, the State would have no avenue for recoupment of that money. The existing recoupment options apply only to unwed fathers.

We did what we felt was the most responsible thing we could. That year, our medical expenses were so high that I had saved every related reciept to try to get a tax break. But a year later, we came up just short of the amount needed to qualify, so, like an idiot, I tossed the reciepts. 2 years after that, the State finally got around to sueing. There are existing limitations on what the State can sue for. Specificly, they can sue the unwed father of the child for up to 1/2 of the medicare expenses minue any pregnancy related expenses the father pays, although, the State's lawyers usually ignore that limitation and attempt to sue for a flat $2000 fee.

Had the State not waited 3 year to sue me I would have had the receipts to show that I had already paid over $1500 in pregnancy related care, and the issue would have been settled.

Further more, my wife is not seeing a dime of that money, the State takes it as it's own. So this nonsense about supporting the kid is just that, nonsense. If anything, the State's decision reduced the quality of life my child enjoys. They picked a hell of a time to sue.

As for paying the State back for the Medicare program... I do it every month, it's called TAXES. And over my life as a tax paying resident of Wisconsin, I have paid well over the $3000 to the medicade program they used to help pay for my son's Birth.

By WI state laws and tax codes, a married couple's assets are considered joint assets. According to state and federal medicare laws, Mother can not be held liable for birthing expenses paid by medicare. And according to state marrage law, debt existing from prior to marrage and only hold lein against that debtor's non-joint assets. My wife is a stay at home mom. Any debt the State applied to me is immediately applied to her as well. The very laws that were written to protect women in tough positions are being used like a blunt hammer to squeze money out from anyone they can get, regardless of the situation. And on top of that, they were trying to charge me interest on top of that! Which is in direct violation of the same state laws they were suing me under.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the prosecution of dead beats and people who attempt to skip out of child support. But the State's persuit of this matter has been run on autopilot with no one in the cockpit to see where it's going. They are just so used to dealing with crap that they expect everyone they s

Re:Legal Advice

[plague3106]

Ehh, no one got screwed. This was NOT welfare. This is a medicade program, a 1 time assistance system set up to help single mothers give birth.

I think you need to research who pays for Medicare / Medicaid.

We were both military vets, so I had my health care through the VA. Her mother worked at the University, so she had coverage under her mother's insurance until she either turned 25 or got married. I was working 3/4 time as an LTE for the state and was in-elligable for benefits until my son was 3 months old. And my wife was unemployed at the time (full time student wrapping up a BS in agronomy, she banked money in the farming seasons and lived on savings over the winter).

Odd that your wife didn't have VA health care. Unfortunately that doesn't suprise me though.

So long as we did not get married, my wife was covered under her mothers insurance. So most of the pre-natal care was covered, I picked up the deductables.

No where did I say you should have gotten married, just that it seemed you were breaking the "spirit" of the program. You yourself said it was meant to help single mothers. Most take that to mean the father is not there at all for any kind of support. Indeed, there's a large number of people on social services that purposefully don't get married to get extra money (which rarely goes to the kid) yet have a live-in boyfriend. It ends up working the same as marriage, except this situation allows them to draw on a program they'd otherwise be disqualified from. I can see why states would want to stop that kind of abuse.

So the ONLY part of the entire process that was covered by the State was the actual birthing. Which I believe the total bill to Medicare (or Medicade, I can't recall which program any more) was about $3000.

Again, look at who pays for those programs. I know quite a large chunk of my paycheck does.

We did what we felt was the most responsible thing we could.

No, the most responsible thing to do would not bring a child into the world you cannot support on your own, or to put the child up for adoption so that a more able family can support them.

Further more, my wife is not seeing a dime of that money, the State takes it as it's own. So this nonsense about supporting the kid is just that, nonsense. If anything, the State's decision reduced the quality of life my child enjoys. They picked a hell of a time to sue.

She already did, when your child was born.

As for paying the State back for the Medicare program... I do it every month, it's called TAXES. And over my life as a tax paying resident of Wisconsin, I have paid well over the $3000 to the medicade program they used to help pay for my son's Birth.

No, you're not paying back. You see, I also have to put money into this system, yet I've never used it. Hopefully they are going after enough people have wrongly benefited they will not have to take quite as much out of my check next year.

By WI state laws and tax codes, a married couple's assets are considered joint assets. According to state and federal medicare laws, Mother can not be held liable for birthing expenses paid by medicare. And according to state marrage law, debt existing from prior to marrage and only hold lein against that debtor's non-joint assets. My wife is a stay at home mom. Any debt the State applied to me is immediately applied to her as well. The very laws that were written to protect women in tough positions are being used like a blunt hammer to squeze money out from anyone they can get, regardless of the situation. And on top of that, they were trying to charge me interest on top of that! Which is in direct violation of the same state laws they were suing me under.

I think the root of the problem is that the laws were meant to help single mothers, not a single child household which is what you had going on. Not married, but still able to share a living space, bills, etc. Two possible incomes, instead

Re:Legal Advice

[RingDev]

I think you need to research who pays for Medicare / Medicaid. Medicaid is paid for by the State and Federal budgets. As I Stated, Taxes. You've paid, I've paid, damn near everyone has paid into Medicaid. You may be thinking of Social Security, or some other state plan. But Medicaid is paid for via Taxes and FICA (which is just another name for Taxes).

Odd that your wife didn't have VA health care. Unfortunately that doesn't suprise me though. She had private insurance, she could go to what ever doc she wanted. She is also a disabled vet and has no love for the Military or Vet doctors after two botched knee surgeries.

No where did I say you should have gotten married, just that it seemed you were breaking the "spirit" of the program. You yourself said it was meant to help single mothers. Most take that to mean the father is not there at all for any kind of support. There is a very similar option for married couples, with the difference being the recoupment options the State has. Unfortunately, this was not clearly explained when we were presented with the option, nor on the program's web site, nor in their pamphlets. When I asked both the rep from the family services and a specialist from child services the closest I got to a warning was something along the lines of 'If any one hassles you, just show them your marriage certificate after you wed and they should leave you alone'.

Many families today CANNOT survive on only one income; BOTH parents must work. Why do you think you're a special case that should get extra help from taxpayers so your wife doesn't have to work at all? You wife has a mother that was willing to keep her on her insurance; surely she can help you with your child while both of you work? Yeah, because my wife, while 9 months pregnant with a pair of bummed legs, should have just said 'screw getting a degree, I'm gonna go work for GM' and pulled a living wage stamping valve covers. Heaven forbid a women completes her education and lands a serious job in this nation.

As for the responsible thing, this was it. You want details? She was on the pill, I used a rubber, freak accidents happen. My son is my own, and I'll love him for ever. Adoption was never an option. I would have moved back in with the folks before that.

As I said elsewhere in this thread. It's not the money that bothers me. It's over, water under the bridge. The State has it, I don't, and it's not worth investing in to get it back. It is the manner in which the Judge just openly stated that he was willing to ignore some laws just because he was not familiar with them. That's something that as the article illustrated, is still an on going issue. Many judges will take the easy road instead of the right road.

-Rick

Re:US Law is like that.

[MarsDefenseMinister]

I can make it even simpler to understand. If you're one of the best small claims judges, you get your own TV show. That's right, Judge Judy represents what the very best small claims court judges are.

It's a guarantee that the judge in your town isn't nearly as thoughtful as Judge Judy.

Re:You missed a vital detail

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Ah, but you missed the most important detail. According to the submission, in Washington a misleading subject line is illegal. Since the subject line claimed that the submitter owns Slashdot, it should have been an open and closed case.

The subject line made a false claim, and the plaintiff pointed out its falsehood. However, falsehood isn't a sufficient condition for a claim to be misleading, because a false claim can just be a honest error. (Hell, falsehood isn't even a necessary condition for something to be misleading; the best lies contain nothing but true statements, after all.)

Bingo!

[Infonaut]

More like: non-lawyer with too much spare time files an inartful lawsuit, blames the judge for his incompetence, then posts about it on slashdot to drum up publicity for his internet site.

What surprises me is that so many people seem to be taking his word for it. If you're a lawyer and you lost a case that was clearly an easy win, the last thing you should do is call attention to the fact that you made a colossal screw-up and allowed the judge to come to such a poor decision. If you're not a lawyer, but you're playing at being one, you should read a few more books before venturing in front of a judge again.

Also, the part about this judge's ability to decide torts cases, rape cases, etc. is absurd. Even the best judges in the history of American jurisprudence have made big mistakes at times. To characterize a judge as a moron for not deciding the case your way is a mark of the character not of the judge, but of the guy writing the article.

Re:US Law is like that.

[innerweb]

Now, we begin to truly understand the complexity of swarm theory.

First a judge, now confused mods.

InnerWeb