Mickey Chandler's SpamSuite

MOTION by Defendant Comcast Corporation for judgment on the pleadings response due by 3/20/2008. Reply due by 3/27/2008. Motion hearing set for 4/15/2008 at 12:30 PM

MOTION by Defendant Comcast Corporation for judgment on the pleadings response due by 3/20/2008. Reply due by 3/27/2008.

MOTION by Defendant Comcast Corporation for judgment on the pleadings response due by 3/20/2008.

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

E360INSIGHT, LLC,
Plaintiff,

v.

COMCAST CORPORATION,
Defendant.

COMCAST’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant, Comcast Corporation (“Comcast”), answers the complaint of Plaintiff, e360insight, LLC (“e360”), as follows:

1. e360insight, LLC (hereafter “e360”) is an Illinois limited liability corporation located in Wheeling, Illinois. e360 is an internet marketing company.

In keeping with the "EPIC FAIL" theme of the day, Comcast has also filed this memorandum of law.

Footnote 5 mentions another court decision that is attached. I didn't attach that decision. It is available online

UPDATE: Fun quotes for any reporters wanting a synopsis:

"Plaintiff is a spammer who refers to itself as a “internet marketing company”"

This suit was destined to be quick. Thus, the theme for this filing and it's supporting memorandum is: "e360Insight's Case Constitutes an EPIC FAIL".

This is Comcast's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. That means that Comcast feels that discovery is completely unnecessary because the suit is frivolous and so they're asking the judge to not waste any more time, look at the existing pleadings, and just go ahead and rule, before discovery even gets started.

If Comcast wins this one, look for them to possibly file for sanctions and for e360 to pay their attorneys' fees and costs.

The Virginia Supreme Court, by a 4-3 decision, has upheld the 2004 felony conviction of Jeremy Jaynes (a/k/a Gaven Stubberfield) for violations of spamming sections of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act. The three dissenting justices would have accepted his First Amendment arguments and dismissed the case. That may be enough to send this on over to the federal side for more appeals.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY,
Defendant.

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS 19-25 OF THE SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY, and
NEWPORT INTERNET MARKETING,
Defendants.

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS AGGRAVATED IDENTITY THEFT COUNTS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT ALAN SOLOWAY,
Defendant.

MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS 19 THROUGH 25 OF THE SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT