Timeline of Silverstein v. TJ Web Productions & Nino Enterprises

Silverstein v. T.J. WEB PRODUCTIONS, LLC, NINO ENTERPRISES, INC., and DOES 1-50

1/30/2007	Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleading is denied. Clyde DeWitt says in Court that if we associate their client with child pornography, they will file a libel suit. DeWitt has yet to explain how an e-mail address create for and only given to TJ Web Productions has been getting spam advertising child pornography.
1/26/2007	Defendant files their reply brief.
1/12/2007	Filed our opposition to the Defendant's motion for judgment on Pleadings.
12/20/2006	Defendant TJ Web Productions file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Claiming that the CAN-SPAM Act preempts the California Law.
8/25/2006	The judge denied TJ Web's motion to quash stating that its website is sufficiently interactive to confer California jurisdiction -- which means that there is general jurisdiction of TJ Web in California. The judge sustained three of my demurrers of Nino's Enterprises affirmative defenses.
8/18/2006	TJ Web filed their reply brief to my opposition to their motion to quash. They point out this site and call me a professional plaintiff, similar to the ADA shakedowns. I only bring these suits because the companies that hire spammers fail to obey the law. The ADA shake downs, similar to Robert Blackseth claiming to go to Hotels, but filing a lawsuit for $4,000 for failing to accommodate for his deafness, but when fought, he drops the case. According to sources he filed against several Hotels for the same violation within a few days. I don't look for the spam, it is forced into my email box hundreds of times a day. I wouldn't file lawsuits, but for Defendants forcing pornography into our and our children's email boxes.
8/14/2006	Nino filed an opposition to the demurrer claiming that claiming it this demurrer was filed only to give Nino busy work, but they ignore the law. This claim is clearly false, as their reasoning this hearing is on the same date as the hearing for the motion to quash. Nino ignores the truth -- that they moved the date of the hearing for the motion to quash to be the same date as the hearing on the demmurer. Is Harcourt Fenton Mudd an associate at Weston, Garrous, DeWitt & Walters? And of course, there was no service of this opposition upon the Plaintiff -- AGAIN!
8/11/2006	Filed my opposition to TJ Web's motion to quash. They do significant amounts of business in California and requires each member to their web site to submit to California jurisdiction.
7/19/2006	Filed a demurrer of Nino's Enterprises' answer.
7/7/2006	TJ Web filed a motion to quash based on jurisdiction. Nino Enterprises filed an answer. The answer included a defense that prosecuting a company for violating the first amendment violates their free speech rights. I guess that Raffi Vartanian and his lawyers believe that pushing pornography upon children in violation of the law is his right. Neither the motion to quash or the answer were served on my attorney -- interesting considering that in a prior case, DeWitt had said to me a while back, "I was a Texas prosecutor and I am tired of jailhouse attorneys" and that if I don't follow all the rules, he'll have me sanctioned. His firm failed to properly serve responses.
5/22/2006	Filed a verified original complaint against T.J. Web Productions, LLC and Nino Enterprises and DOES 1-50 for spamming.
September 2005	I sent a demand letter to TJ Web. Their attorney Clyde DeWitt responded. He asked for samples and threatened to file a CCP § 425.16 motion, if I filed suit. For those who do not know, that is the California anti-SLAPP statute. In his second letter, DeWitt told me that he'd make an example of me, if I file suit against his client. Of course that response made me make an example of TJ Web.
7/25/2004	I sent an email complaining of their spam to both Defendants, but nothing was done. Of course, the spam continued.

Another William Silverstein site. Copyright © 2002-2009 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. There is a significant fee for John Du Wors, any member of the law firm Newman Dichter LLP, any member of the law firm Newman&Newman LLP, anyone working on behalf of, in conjunction with, or under the control of John Du Wors, or worked for in the past, on the behalf of any attorney or legal department working on behalf of Mattel, Microsystems Software, Surf Control, or any related corporation.

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.