SpamSuite.com

The problem with a lawsuit involving both popular and unpopular entities is that the whole world wants to get involved. This case is no different.

Mark Ferguson wants the Court to know about his experiences being sued by e360 Insight, and so he chooses to file a defective affidavit to do so (there's no notary seal on the signature page). I believe that normally you would do this via the "amicus curae" brief, after getting permission from the Court to file it.

Also, liability has already been determined, so I'm not sure what good at all this is really supposed to do.

[UPDATE: My OCR software didn't find the last two pages. They are actually there and are now also reproduced below.]
===========================================
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

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

v.

THE SPAMHAUS PROJECT, a Company Limited by Guarantee and Organized Under the Laws of England also known as THE SPAMHAUS PROJECT, LIMITED,

Defendants.

AFFIDAVIT OF MARK FERGUSON REGARDING 360INSIGHT LLC. V. SPAMHAUS ET. AL

I Mark Ferguson declare and state:

1. My name is Mark Ferguson and I am not a Defendant in this action. The facts set out below are known to me personally and if called on I could testify to those facts under oath.

2. I have no relationship with Plaintiffs Dave Linhardt and or E360 Insight other than them suing me and five others for speaking out about their spamming activities. (Exhibit "I," attached)

3. I have no relationship with Spamhaus but the use of some or parts of their lists to block spam.

4. Dave Linhardt manufactured information to indicate I signed up for his spam on November 29, 2007 (Exhibit "2," attached)

-2-
5. At the time Dave Linhardt manufactured this information signup my internet accounts were set up in such a way as to preclude viewing my IP address unless I logged onto a website and the owner of that site had direct access to the log files.

6. I was assigned a static IP address [131.191.13.159] by my current broadband provider Advanced Stream on January 12, 2007 when I signed up. (Exhibit "4," attached)

7. Plaintiff Dave Linhardt took my current information, manufactured a false sign up for me and then back dated it to November 29, 2006.

8. Plaintiff Dave Linhardt then presented that manufactured evidence to his attorney Darren Green as fact as seen in his response letter to my Letter of Demand fir damages dated March 5, 2007. (Exhibit "3," attached)

9. Plaintiffs filed no less than two separate lawsuits for the same causes in two separate courts in Illinois against me in the last six months. The first case was filed March 7, 2007 (E360 Insight v. Mark James Ferguson) filed in the District Court for the Northern. District of Illinois Eastern division, Plaintiffs then requested from the court a voluntary dismissal approximately Iwo months later on May 8, 2007 without any defendants ever being served.

10. Immediately a second suit was launched in the Circuit Court for Cook County for the same exact causes of action on May 1. 1, 2007. Plaintiffs merely dropping one defendant and added Bill Silverstein because Mr. Silverstein filed suit against Plaintiffs for spamming him in Federal Court in California. (WILLIAM SILVERSTEIN vs.E3601NSIGHT, LLC)

11. Nevertheless, myself and the other five defendants were required to defend ourselves a second time because Plaintiffs filed again, this time in the Cook County Circuit Court (E360 Insight v. Mark James Ferguson).

12. Plaintiffs' attorneys were informed as to the nature of their primary evidence a second time and ignored my attempts to inform them their client filed a case based on manufactured evidence.

-3-
13. In the end and after more bad faith from the Synergy Law Group the case followed the previous case in Federal court and they requested a voluntary dismissal.

14. I was amiable to this and affirmed I would be willing to pay my own cost Mr. Peters informed me he would email me documents outlining his proposal. These documents never arrived and I only found out later Plaintiffs were attempting to remove my and two other defendants from the case.

15. Plaintiffs used this manufactured evidence and other unethical tactics in their attempt to claim Personal Jurisdiction over me falsely claiming I committed these acts in Illinois citing cases from as far away as New Jersey to bolster this claim. (Exhibit “5,” attached)

16. Strategically this was a good attempt to gain default judgments against all three defendants but ethically Plaintiff knew there was not a case strong enough to obtain Jurisdiction and any outcome would have been morally and ethically wrong and would not be upheld in a court of Jurisdiction.

17. Furthermore, an injunction was requested in an attempt to use the Illinois Court as a tool to strip away my first amendment right to free speech. Not only was this wrong it was attempted in the Law Division of the Circuit Court which does not have the authority to issue an injunction. This is not merely missteps by their legal team but was intended to chill the free speech of all those that participate in public forums like the Usenet and the Internet.

18. It is this type of unethical behavior I wish to bring to the Court's attention. If Plaintiffs cannot win a case on its merit they resort subterfuge, deception and lies to win. Going so far as to manufacture evidence or in the very least use evidence they know to be manufactured because Plaintiffs manufactured that evidence themselves.

19. On Friday 24, 2007 Synergy Law Group did file a Notice of Filing with the Cook County Court which named me as a recipient of their Response to Defendant Robert Saeker’s Motion to Dismiss which I have yet to receive four weeks later.

-4-
20. Upon further investigation I found no less than ninety-three [seventy-three presented as evidence] spam from Plaintiffs that were clear violations of the Can Spam Act, Washington’s CEMA and Illinois 815 ILCS 511/1, specifically 815 ILCS 511/10 subsections (a-5) and (a-10).

21. All this shows that when Plaintiff Dave Linhardt declared under penalties of perjury that he complied with all federal and state laws he lied to the court in David Linhardt's affidavit in support of e360insight LLC's Motion for Default Judgment.

e360 is an email based marketing company whose business practices have, at all times, complied with federal and state requirements and standards pertaining to the sending of commercial email, including the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003, 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM).

22. I now respectfully request you enter this affidavit into evidence.

Mark Ferguson

Attachment	Date	Size
FergAffidavit.pdf	10/02/07 2:22 pm	457.99 KB