Posted on 04/09/2005 5:21:11 PM PDT by Valin
LEESBURG (VIRGINIA): He was once considered among the top 10 spammers in the world, using the Internet to peddle pornography and sham products and services like the "FedEx refunding processor”, prosecutors say.
Convicted in the nation's first felony case against illegal spamming, Jeremy Jaynes, 30, on Friday was sentenced to nine years in prison for bombarding Internet users with the junk e-mails. But Loudoun County Circuit Judge Thomas Horne delayed the start of Jaynes' prison term while the case is appealed, saying the law is new and raises constitutional questions. Jaynes was convicted in November for using false Internet addresses and aliases to send mass e-mail ads through an AOL server in Loudoun County, where America Online is based. Under Virginia law, sending unsolicited bulk e-mail itself is not a crime unless the sender masks his identity.
While prosecutors presented evidence of just 53,000 illegal e-mails, authorities believe Jaynes was responsible for spewing out 10 million e-mails a day. Prosecutors say his operation grossed up to $750,000 per month.
A jury recommended the nine-year term for the Raleigh, North Carolina, man. Prosecutor Lisa Hicks-Thomas said she was pleased with Friday's ruling – and confident the law would be upheld on appeal.
But defence attorney David Oblon argued nine years was far too long given Jaynes was charged as an out-of-state resident with violating a Virginia law that had taken effect just weeks before. He planned to challenge both the constitutionality of the law and its applicability to Jaynes. "We have no doubt that we will win on appeal, therefore any sentence is somewhat moot. Still, the sentence is not what we recommended and we're disappointed," Oblon said outside court.
Horne said he might also reconsider the sentence if Jaynes loses the appeal. "I do not believe a person should go to prison for a law that is invalid," he said. "There are substantial legal issues that need to be brought before the appellate court."
A judge has ruled Maryland's anti-spam law unconstitutional because it seeks to regulate commerce outside the state's borders. However, an appeals court in California and the Washington state Supreme Court have upheld state laws that had been declared unconstitutional by lower courts on grounds similar to the December ruling in Maryland.
Many states have criminal laws against spam, but Virginia's makes it easier than others for prosecutors to obtain a felony conviction, which carries more jail time than a misdemeanor, said Quinn Jalli of the online marketing firm Digital Impact. Jaynes told the judge regardless of how the appeal turns out, "I can guarantee the court I will not be involved in the e-mail marketing business again." He remains under $1 million bond.
The jury also convicted Jaynes's sister, Jessica DeGroot, but recommended only a $7,500 fine. Her conviction was later dismissed by the judge. A third defendant, Richard Rutkowski of Cary, North Carolina, was acquitted.
Search is your friend...posted several times including this post http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1380087/posts
He got off lite. Boiling in oil would be more like it.
1 down and million to go...it's about dam time.
I think, whilst sitting in a jail cell he should appeal as much as he likes. Every time he opens a response it should be an offer for "enlightenment" or "enlargement" or whatever....that would be justice!!!!
Search is your friend
And so is more about the same story!
FEEL THE LOVE! :-)
My spam is way down. I don't if it because this guy is out of business or that Yahoo has gotten better with their screening.
That's what I like about it here- All the kindness and compassion.
He actually deserves to be impaled and disemboweled in front of his children..
People claim that "Murderers serve more time than that..what he did was nonviolent," etc.etc.
Spammers show more universal contempt for people than many "real" criminals. They show a predatory and cynical tendency to subvert anything-Faxes, as was the starting point of Sanford Wallace, before he found out he could pervet a new medium. BTW, forget "Free Speech" arguments, because free speech does not come with postage due, and the Compuserve vs. Cyberpromo case disposed of that argument years ago. First Amendment arguments for commercial theft is the last refuge of the desperate.
The other argument is they are nothing but scammers, anyway. We had one on here a year ago. I challenged it to cut-and-paste just ONE of its spams that advertised a real, mainstream product-Not fake dental insurance, quack cures, pyramid schemes, of counterfeit Rolexes.
No response.
I'd like to see a statute that would provide that if a victim of any crime was the originator of spam, viruses, worms, spyware, or other such junk, the defendant would be allowed to present evidence of same to the jury (with the victim, of course, being allowed cross-examination and rebuttal). The jury would be instructed to use that knowledge as they saw fit.
It sure would be tragic if spammers' cars got singled out for stripping/theft, wouldn't it?
Get a rope boys. Try em and hang em.
I got hit with a spyware program a couple of months ago. Ended up reformating my hard drive to get rid of it. It was from an anti-spyware co., my fault for not protecting myself from them.
Now we have th4e Chinese and their online "pharmacy".
A GOOD START !!
You're far more kind than I am.....I think they should have a jackhammer forceably inserted into their nether orifices and then have it turned on full. JMHO.
additional previous posts:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1380082/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1380087/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1379980/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.