Spammer Gets Nine Years...Wow!

[jakethebake]

Convicted Spammer
Gets Nine-Year Sentence

Associated Press
April 8, 2005 3:00 p.m.

A Virginia judge sentenced a spammer to nine years in prison Friday in the U.S.'s first felony prosecution for sending junk e-mail, though the sentence was postponed while the case is appealed.

Judge Thomas Horne said that because the law targeting bulk e-mail distribution is new and raises constitutional questions, it was appropriate to defer the prison time until appeals courts rule.

A jury had recommended the nine-year prison term after convicting Jeremy Jaynes of pumping out at least 10 million e-mails a day with the help of 16 high-speed lines, the kind of Internet capacity a 1,000-employee company would need.

Mr. Jaynes, of Raleigh, N.C., told the judge that regardless of how the appeal turns out, "I can guarantee the court I will not be involved in the e-mail marketing business again."

The prosecutor, Lisa Hicks-Thomas, said she was pleased with the sentence and confident that the law would be upheld on appeal. "We're satisfied that the court upheld what 12 citizens of Virginia determined was an appropriate sentence -- nine years in prison," Ms. Hicks-Thomas said.

Defense attorney David Oblon argued in court that nine years was far too long given that Mr. Jaynes was charged as an out-of-state resident with violating a Virginia law that had taken effect just two weeks before.

Though Mr. Oblon has never disputed that his client was a bulk e-mail distributor, he argued during the trial that the law was poorly crafted and that prosecutors never proved the e-mail was unsolicited. He also has said the law is an unconstitutional infringement of free speech.

Under Virginia law, sending unsolicited bulk e-mail itself is not a crime unless the sender masks his identity. Prosecutors brought the case in Virginia because it is home to Internet-service provider America Online Inc.

Prosecutors have described Mr. Jaynes as among the top 10 spammers in the world at the time of his arrest, using the name "Gaven Stubberfield" and other aliases to peddle junk products and pornography. Prosecutors say he grossed up to $750,000 per month.

The jury also convicted Mr. Jaynes's sister, Jessica DeGroot of Raleigh, N.C., but recommended only a $7,500 fine. Her conviction was later dismissed by the judge. A third defendant, Richard Rutkowski of Cary, N.C., was acquitted of all charges.

Copyright © 2005 Associated Press

[Shajen]

I hate spammers, they suck...but 9 years a little harsh man.

Damn.

[Dead]

No it's not.

If armed robbers get 10 then this guy can certainly get 30.

[Rhone]

Don't defendants have a choice to avoid a jury trial? Spammers are probably not too far removed from child molestors as far as public hatred goes these days...I can't believe his lawyers would be stupid enough to put his fate in the hands of a jury...

[rt1]

this is really bs... putting him in jail for 9 years isnt going to stop spam.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate spammers, they suck...but 9 years a little harsh man.

Damn.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you consider how many hours people have wasted on his spam multiplied by the number of people affected, he has effectively stolen many many lifetimes of productivity from the people of this country.

His sentence is too light.

[jakethebake]

I have mixed feelings on this. I have a serious hatred for spam, but I'm not sure I want the government telling me I can or can't e-mail someone. I guess I feel the same way about the do not call thing. It sucks, but I'm not sure having the gevernment stomp on my personal liberty is the answer. That's all I'll say, just becaue anything more belongs in the politics forum, where they're likely already debating this to the death.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
No it's not.

If armed robbers get 10 then this guy can certainly get 30.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate it when we agree. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[Dead]

I am a true conservative. You should model yourself after me.

Dead=tough on crime.

I don't toe the liberal line. I pick what I believe to be the correct positions.

I'm very pro-gun for example. I'm an NRA member.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]

Dead=tough on certain selected crimes.



[/ QUOTE ]

I fixed your post.

[Dead]

That's garbage.

I am tough on violent crimes. I don't see the point in locking someone up for credit card fraud, for example. I think the community is better served by making that person pay restitution and do community service.

Save the jail cells for the violent people who truly pose threats to the community(murderers, rapists, child molesters, armed robbers, etc.)

I want to let all of the nonviolent drug users out of jail.

I support the death penalty for murder.

But spammers are a different story. They do so much damage to our economy as a whole that I think a long jail sentence is appropriate.

[[censored]]

This is insanely stupid. Does spam suck? yes. But the key fact here is that the law had only been in affect for 2 weeks,so before that he was operating a prefectly legal business. You don't people in jail for 9 years for over someting like this. God damnit people are retarded.

[[censored]]

I don't people would be celebrating so much if the guy had been arrested and jailed for breaking another law, say playing online poker from his home.

[Dead]

There's a huge difference.

Playing online poker harms no one(you could make an argument that it harms the fish, but no one forces them to play).

Spamming people is awful. I hate having to wade through 50 spam messages a day.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a huge difference.

Playing online poker harms no one(you could make an argument that it harms the fish, but no one forces them to play).

Spamming people is awful. I hate having to wade through 50 spam messages a day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many people would argue that it harms society and that you or me should not be able to decide which laws we follow and which we dismiss.

Again the key here is that the law was newly enacted. He should have been ordered to stop first and probably fined two weeks of revenue (350K). If he then proceded to spam against a court order and in full knowledge of the law jail maybe appropriate.

[Dead]

It doesn't matter if the law was enacted two weeks before. He surely knew about the law and decided to ignore it.

This is not really a morally debatable law like a drug law would be. He can't invoke freedom of speech protections. Mailboxes are private property and spamming them is like e-trespassing.

[Shajen]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a huge difference.

Playing online poker harms no one(you could make an argument that it harms the fish, but no one forces them to play).

Spamming people is awful. I hate having to wade through 50 spam messages a day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then learn how to set up spam filters...fish.

See, spam isn't a worry for me, because I know how to handle it. Those "millions" of people who have problems with spam could solve their problems easily be setting up spam filters, not using the same damned email address for everything, etc. It's easy.

9 years is harsh. People have gotten less for murder.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter if the law was enacted two weeks before. He surely knew about the law and decided to ignore it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you assume that?

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Mailboxes are private property and spamming them is like e-trespassing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is idiotic.

[Dead]

Why?

How would you like it if someone walked up to the mailbox in front of your house and took a gigantic [censored] in it, 50 times a day, every day? I bet you wouldn't like that too much.

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
Prosecutors say he grossed up to $750,000 per month.


[/ QUOTE ]

I want to be a professional spammer when I grow up

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter if the law was enacted two weeks before. He surely knew about the law and decided to ignore it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you assume that?

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't even matter if he didn't know. It's his job to be informed of the laws.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Why?

How would you like it if someone walked up to the mailbox in front of your house and took a gigantic [censored] in it, 50 times a day, every day? I bet you wouldn't like that too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean how would I like if everyday I got junkmail. ehh, it really doesn't bother me that much.

So if I send an email to the wrong person I have "trespassed"?

If I were to go into your backyard without permission and be convicted of trespassing I would not be sentenced to 9 years in prison.

[DeathbySuckout]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate spammers, they suck...but $750,000 per month is a lot of [censored] money .

[/ QUOTE ]

[Dead]

Sorry, it's a bad analogy. And I can deal with junkmail in my mailbox, because I can just throw it out and I don't get nearly as much. I get maybe one every day.

But the spam online is endless.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, it's a bad analogy. And I can deal with junkmail in my mailbox, because I can just throw it out and I don't get nearly as much. I get maybe one every day.

But the spam online is endless.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I am not saying it should be legal or that he should have not been punished. I think a fine of $350,000 would have been fair for a first offense of a new law. If the then proceded to continue spamming jail time would be warranted.

[Dead]

I have a better idea.

Just give out his home address on TV. Make sure that everyone knows he is a spammer.

Some angry dude should take care of him pretty quick.

[JackWilson]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate spammers, they suck...but 9 years a little harsh man.

Damn.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO the real crime here is not sending out junk email but doing so under an alias, thus evading the (somewhat limited) protection that ISPs can provide. If he used his real name/address he would have been banned from his ISP.

[[censored]]

Well I just saw a picture of the guy and he looks creepy, like a child molestor,..... [censored] him.

[Dead]

Check out the pic of that douchebag who created that Blaster worm:

http://www.startribune.com/stonline/images/news40/1parson0331.l.jpg

PeeWee Herman on roids!

A sentence of no Twinkies, Hostess Cupcakes or HoHos for a year would be enough.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mailboxes are private property and spamming them is like e-trespassing.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is idiotic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming Dead said this since i couldn't find the original poster and I have him on ignore. Your ears are private property to. Should we give people 9 years for talking to you? (on second thought maybe anyone that cares enough to talk to Dead should get 9 years in the nut house). oh wait...