Patterico's Pontifications

4/8/2005

Spammer in the Slammer

Filed under: General,Scum — See Dubya @ 4:11 pm



Dude sent ten million spam e-mails a day. And that was just to me, I think.

There are disputes about whether the law is unconstitutional because it is a state statute restricting interstate commerce (which is of course Congress’ realm) but this Times article says they probably won’t overturn the case. So it looks like Jeremy Jaynes is doing nine years, which is some pretty hard time. I wonder what happened to the $750 K a month he was pulling down? Can I instigate a class action against him on behalf of everyone who’s lost time dealing with his noxious pandering?

Related: The other day I got a spam from someone named “Unscientific L. Poop” using a compuserve address.

8 Responses to “Spammer in the Slammer”

  1. “state statute restricting interstate commerce (which is of course Congress’ realm)”

    Glad to hear that the dormant commerce clause is uncontroversial.

    “Can I instigate a class action against him on behalf of everyone who’s lost time dealing with his noxious pandering?”

    IIRC, the “can spam” act doesn’t allow private causes of action.r

    actus (f9abe0)

  2. I’ll bet he wishes his chosen offense had been a breach of national security instead.

    It’s such disparities as exist between the punishment for this offense and that meted out to Sandy Berger, not to mention a Supreme Court that can’t figure out what is meant by the words, “Congress shall make no law …” while somehow managing to find the word “privacy” in a 45-word sentence that makes no mention of the term, that has left me with very little faith in the American judicial system to apply and interpret the law fairly and equitably.

    Greetings from Fort Worth, by the way.

    [Fort Worth!? Do I know you!? — Patterico]

    Roofer (6d504a)

  3. The Spaminator and a rant about real junk mail
    Spam, as tedious as it is, is not nearly so burdensome as the huge piles of unsolicited requests for charitable contributions, advertisements and catalogs that arrive in our out-sized mailbox six days a week. By virtually any measure (weight, pieces)…

    TigerHawk (59ce3a)

  4. The Internet is such an ambiguous place that it is intrastate, interstate and international, all at the same time. If they got one of the top 10 spammers put away for 9 years, I for one am not going to object to it on juristictional grounds.

    Kevin Murphy (6a7945)

  5. By the way, what happens if I’m standing in Nevada (not on any federal enclave), and shoot someone in California, and he dies there, while I remain in Nevada? Which state has juristiction, or is it solely a federal crime?

    Kevin Murphy (6a7945)

  6. We had exactly that hypothetical. I think it’s where the guy dies, since that’s where the elements of the crime were completed.

    See-Dubya (85b967)

  7. “Which state has juristiction, or is it solely a federal crime?”

    Does it have to be exclusive? Elements of the crime happened in both states.

    actus (ebc508)

  8. I think it is important to emphasize that Jaynes was not only a spammer, but a scammer. It appears that the purpose of his 10 million emails a day was to perpetrate fraud on the recipients. The article I read states that he was “using the Internet to peddle … sham products and services like the “FedEx refunding processor”, and also that he was falsifying his identity, which is explicitly illegal in Virginia. Given these two facts, I think 9 years is appropriate.

    I am waiting for the flood of complaints along the lines of “9 years for spamming? Whoa! Goodbye free speech!” that don’t tell the whole story.

    Mike D in SC (5338c6)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1881 secs.