Mickey Chandler's Spamsuite.com

Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement With Affidavit of Confession of Judgment

Mickey — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:53:45 +0000

The end of this case has finally happened.

What we have here are the settlement documents, which, significantly, are not sealed.

9th Circuit decision in US v. Kilbride

Mickey — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:40:57 +0000

Here is the 9th Circuit opinion in USA v. Kilbride, (9th Cir., 2009). This is primarily an obscenity case against the defendants for sending pornographic spam email.

9th Circuit decision

Mickey — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:31:20 +0000

Here is the decision from the 9th Circuit.

So, what happened this week?

Mickey — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:31:11 +0000

You may have noticed that Spamsuite was down for a few days this week. If you did, you may have wondered what happened.

Usenet.com Decision

Mickey — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:07:57 +0000

Some time ago I posted the court decision against David Ritz.

Site Update

Mickey — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:39:48 +0000

Some of you may have noticed that Spamsuite was down over the weekend. That was a case of an upgrade gone bad.

Ralsky Plea Agreement

Mickey — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:45:24 +0000

Here is the plea agreement with Alan Ralsky.

William Neil Plea Agreement

Mickey — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:43:46 +0000

Here is the plea agreement with William Neil.

Fite Plea Agreement

Mickey — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:41:33 +0000

Here is the Fite plea agreement.

Bown Plea Agreement

Mickey — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:39:51 +0000

Here is the Bown plea agreement.

Bradley Plea Agreement

Mickey — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:37:03 +0000

Here is the Bradley Plea Agreement.

Statement on FoxNews.com Post Regarding Former Senator Bradley and Quinstreet, Inc.

Mickey — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:44:03 +0000

Today FoxNews.com ran a piece stating that Quinstreet, Inc., has been identified as a "major spamming firm" by this site. That statement is inaccurate and misleading.

Final Judgments

Mickey — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:48:02 +0000

Here are the Final Judgments in this case.

Consent Agreements

Mickey — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:33:11 +0000

Looks like this case has settled.

Answer

Mickey — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:39:56 +0000

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSA WESTERN DIVISION

e360INSIGHT, LLC
PLAINTIFF

vs.
CHOICEPOINT PRECISION MARKETING LLC
DEFENDANT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Complaint

Mickey — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:44:52 +0000

You'll need to grab the PDF file to get all of the information here. There are two exhibits attached to the filing which I didn't OCR.

On page 11 (Page 1 of Exhibit A to the Data License Agreement), you will find what e360 bought a license to: "approximately 40,000,000 records."

e360Insight, LLC, v. ChoicePoint Precision Marketing, LLC

Mickey — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:04:33 +0000

On January 21, 2009, e360Insight, LLC, a company well-known to these pages, sued ChoicePoint Precision Marketing, LLC, in an Arkansas state circuit court for breach of contract. e360 claims that ChoicePoint refused to honor a contractual agreement to fully indemnify e360 for its use of ChoicePoint's lists.

On February 26, 2009, ChoicePoint removed the case to federal court.

Ruling on Various Motions

Mickey — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:34:16 +0000

Here is Judge Kocoras's ruling on Spamhaus's Motion to Exclude the January 2009 Affidavit of David Linhardt, Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of David Linhardt, and Motion for Summary Judgment.

Answer to Counter Claims and Third Party Claims

Mickey — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 21:06:29 +0000

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

E360INSIGHT, LLC,
Plaintiff, v.
COMCAST CORPORATION,
Defendant.
________________________________________

COMCAST CORPORATION,
Counterclaimant, v.
E360INSIGHT, LLC,
Counterdefendant, and

Motion to Strike Affidavit of David Linhardt

Mickey — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:36:27 +0000

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

e360 INSIGHT, LLC, an Illinois Limited
Liability Company, and DAVID LINHARDT,
an individual,
Plaintiffs,

THE SPAMHAUS PROJECT, a company
limited by guarantee and organized under the
laws of England, a/k/a THE SPAMHAUS
PROJECT, LTD.,
Defendant.

Reply to Response to Motion in Limine to Exclude Damages Opinion Testimony of David Linhardt

Mickey — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:35:17 +0000

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

e360 INSIGHT, LLC, an Illinois Limited
Liability Company, and DAVID LINHARDT,
an individual,
Plaintiffs,

THE SPAMHAUS PROJECT, a company
limited by guarantee and organized under the
laws of England, a/k/a THE SPAMHAUS
PROJECT, LTD.,
Defendant.

Reply to Response to Motion for Summary Judgment on Damages

Mickey — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:23:30 +0000

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

e360 INSIGHT, LLC, an Illinois Limited
Liability Company, and DAVID LINHARDT,
an individual,
Plaintiffs,

THE SPAMHAUS PROJECT, a company
limited by guarantee and organized under the
laws of England, a/k/a THE SPAMHAUS
PROJECT, LTD.,
Defendant.

Response to Motion in Limine to Exclude Damages Opinion Testimony of David Linhardt

Mickey — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:33:48 +0000

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

E360INSIGHT, LLC,
an Illinois Limited Liability Company, and
DAVID LINHARDT, an individual
Plaintiffs,

THE SPAMHAUS PROJECT,
a company limited by guarantee and
organized under the laws of England, aka
THE SPAMHAUS PROJECT LTD,
Defendant.

Response to Motion for Summary Judgment on Damages

Mickey — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:23:51 +0000

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

E360INSIGHT, LLC,
an Illinois Limited Liability Company, and
DAVID LINHARDT, an individual
Plaintiffs,

THE SPAMHAUS PROJECT,
a company limited by guarantee and
organized under the laws of England, aka
THE SPAMHAUS PROJECT LTD,
Defendant.

Brief Statement of the Case

Mickey — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:31:26 +0000

Here is the concise statement of the issues that Ms. Shuey's attorneys are asking the 3rd Circuit to decide.

Appeal

Mickey — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:28:34 +0000

Here are relevant documents from the appeal of this case.

Order on Motion for Reconsideration

Mickey — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:26:04 +0000

Here is the Court's order denying the motion to reconsider its order to dismiss. It reiterates that all they did was complain about why they missed the Court's order to respond, but not explain why they missed the original deadline set by Local Rule.

Reply to Motion for Reconsideration

Mickey — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:23:46 +0000

Here is the reply brief opposing the Motion to Reconsider. It's got the winning argument that goes along the lines of "If you had done what you were supposed to have in a timely manner then the Court wouldn't have needed to send the notice that got eaten by your spam folder."

Motion for Reconsideration

Mickey — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:21:02 +0000

Here is the Motion for Reconsideration and its accompanying Memorandum in Support.

Shuey, et al. v. Schwab, et al.

Mickey — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:17:33 +0000

Here's a practice note for all of you attorneys out there:

STOP USING THE "MY SPAM FOLDER ATE THE COURT'S NOTICE" DEFENSE!

Seriously. Don't do it. It's a dog of a strategy. Keep your deadlines, and don't blame your spam filter for your failure to do so.