Mickey Chandler's SpamSuite

Here is the Judge's order granting the ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order with Asset Freeze, Other Equitable Relief, and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue.

The FTC started this case under seal so that they could serve the defendants and freeze all of their assets before they got a real chance to dispose of them.

Here is the FTC's complaint against Click Fusion Inc., Inet Ventures Pty Ltd., Jody Michael Smith, Lance Thomas Atkinson, Tango Pay Inc., and TwoBucks Trading Limited.

On October 6, 2008, the FTC sued "a vast international spam network that peddled prescription drugs and bogus male-enhancement products." The defendants have been identified as the "#1 worst spam gang on the Internet" by the Spamhaus.

Xavier Ratelle, the actual spammer in this case, appears to have skipped the country. He now says that he is in Nicaragua, and claims to be returning on 31 January 2008.

I'll believe that when I see it.

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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

v.

SPEAR SYSTEMS, INC., et al.
Defendants.

FTC'S MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR SERVICE AS TO DEFENDANT XAVIER RATELLE

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, January 8, 2008:

MINUTE entry before Judge David H. Coar : Motion hearing held on 1/8/2008 regarding motion for entry of default, [38. MOTION by Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission for entry of default against Defendants Sili Neutraceuticals, LLC and Brian McDaid [38] is granted − signature order to follow from movant. Prove−up default In Court hearing set for 1/23/2008 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice

This is not really your standard, run-of-the-mill motion for entry of default. This is more of a motion for "death penalty sanctions". That is, to strike the answer and enter a default judgment as though no answer had ever been issued in the case.

Let me hasten to add that that's not precisely the request here. This is just a motion for default. There's no request to strike the answer. But, this is a form of sanctions nonetheless. The Defendants were ordered to produce certain paperwork by a given date and they refused. The penalty for that refusal is the entry of default.

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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

v.

SILI NEUTRACEUTICALS, LLC, and
BRIAN MCDAID, individually and doing
business as KAYCON LTD,
Defendants.

FTC’S MOTION TO STRIKE JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), by undersigned counsel, moves the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(a)(2), to strike the jury demand contained in Defendants’ Answer.1 In support of its motion, the FTC states:

MINUTE entry before Judge David H. Coar on 8/22/2007:Status hearing continued to 8/27/2007 at 09:00 A.M.Mailed notice (pm, ) (Entered: 08/22/2007)

What do you do when someone from another place comes to your court, hat-in-hand and asks for a continuance?

Why you tell him "Find someone here and only communicate with me through local counsel or I'll strike your motion in 30 days. Your pick.", of course. It's called a Rule 83.15 letter after the local rule it references.

That rule states:

LR83.15. Local Counsel: Designation for Service