Spamming case status

10/27/2004	I settled with Global Web Promotions. I only settled since the FTC filed suit and had an injunction that stops them from doing business, spamming, and freezing all their monies from spamming. One spammer down, many left.
8/11/2004	Judge Hatter of the federal court, granted my motion to remand to state court.
4/29/04	The FTC follows my lead and files a lawsuit against Global Web Promotions, naming both Michael John Anthony Van Essen, and Lance Thomas Atkinson personally, in response to 399,700 spam complaints. It is interesting to note that the commission voted 5-0 to file the lawsuit. When I spoke to the attorney handling the case for the FTC, he knew my name because he knows this site.
4/05/04	GWP opposes the motion to remand, and of course continues their ridiculous accusations of improper service.
4/04/04	I filed a motion for leave to amend, as in their motion to strike, GWP claimed that the old law was repealed, so I wanted to add violations of the new law which GWP still violates.
3/24/04	Silverstein filed a motion to remand, as Global Web removed more than 30 days after service, and failed to file a complete certification of interested parties.
3/17/04	Global Web filed a motion to dismiss based on: Lack of proper service, lack of jurisdiction, Failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and a motion to strike portions of the complaint, mostly based on the new California law (California Business and Professions Code § 17529.5) and the CAN-SPAM act repealing and superceding the old California anti-spam laws. Of course there arguments are entirely without merit, and I am surprised that court security allowed that fertilizer into the federal court building. It would appear that Mike Van Essen committed perjury when he signed an affidavit that stated, "GWP does not conduct and has never conducted any business in California or in the United States. " They shipped product to Silverstein, located in California and the FTC investigator in Chicago; they regularly conduct business with Eyefive, Inc. located in California. The FTC filed a lawsuit against GWP based on 399,700 complaints by US residents. GWP does not have and has never had a telephone number in California or in the United States." GWP maintained more than one US telephone number. GWP I have received a copy of the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff William Silverstein, a summons, (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A), and other documents, by mail on January 22, 2004. The envelope containing the documents was addressed to me at my home address. It was not addressed to GWP's business address. GWP's registered business address is Van Essen's home address. GWP's attorney, Janine Bassett, claims that there was no legible copy of proof of service provided to the court, but that is a lie. If Bassett bothered to walk the 5 blocks to the courthouse, they would have seen that there was a legible proof of service filed. Of course, this proof was submitted in response to their baseless motion -- Bassett objected to this, apparently due to the worst evidence rule.
2/23/04	Global Web removed the case to federal court, based on diversity jurisdiction and federal question -- that the I-CAN-SPAM act supersedes the California law.
2/17/04	Kent Raygor appeared for Global Web at the case management conference. He claimed that he just was brought on the case the prior Friday and didn't really know much about it. He works for the firm Sheppard, Mullen, Richter & Hampton, LLP. I found him to beHe was quite rude and a liar.
1/9/04	Another party performed service by registered mail (per California Civil Procedure § 415.40) on Global Web's office in Australia
1/6/04	Dan Balsam performed substitute service on Global Web's mailing address, Eyefive's address -- as posted on Global Web's website.
11/25/03	Amended the complaint, removing Eyefive as a defendant and adding Global Web Promotions PTY, Ltd. Eyefive, claims, that there were only providing fulfillment services for Global Web. Keep in mind -- get into bed with a spammer, wake up with fleas in the form of a lawsuit.
8/18/03	Filed original lawsuit against Eyefive Inc.

Another William Silverstein site. Copyright ©2002-2013 William Silverstein. All rights reserved.

This site is copyrighted material and its use is subject to non-exclusive license. If you do not agree to the terms of this license, leave this site immediately, or you are bound by the terms of the license. Your use of this site signifies your agreement to be bound by the terms of this license. The use of this site is free for personal and non-commercial use - particularly for those wish to learn about and protect the rights of employees and those who oppose their abuse by employers and large corporations, but there are significant fees charged for certain other uses.

This page are the opinions of William Silverstein based on facts and information provided to him. This is not to be construed as legal advice. Mattel is the manufacturer of Barbie, Matchbox, and Hot Wheels. This site is neither approved nor endorsed by Mattel. All trademarks belong to their respective owners.

Your use of this site acknowledges that you waive for yourself, your client, and your employer any and all claim against Silverstein for any action that relating to this site. If you don't agree to this, leave this site immediately. Your use of this site signifies your acceptance of these terms in this paragraph and the terms of use for the_ site. Assume that any email going to the barbieslapp.com domain will be going to a California resident and to a fax machine. All e-mail going to this domain is being handled by a California e-mail service provider using servers in California that prohibit unsolicited commercial e-mail.