FAQ on Sanford Wallace!!!!!!
Nomen Nescio
actually resides on Sanford Avenue in San Pablo, CA.!!
(By the way, Spamford Wallace has confessed to being "Taylor Jimenez"
in the sci.psychology.psychotherapy newsgroup TODAY!!!!!!!!!)
The Internet’s most notorious spammer, Sanford Wallace of Cyber Promotions,
Inc., and other bulk e-mailers have been accused of spoofing addresses,
cloaking headers, and sending out millions of scattershot e-mails for various
schlocky schemes and products. Now the evidence indicates that the pathetic
abuser gets his "power trips" kicks from trying to control or extort people
on Usenet to do what he says or what his friends say (SOooo _low_ has he
apparently sunk for 'power' and 'admiration'). Although (to gain acceptance
and respectability) this jackass supposedly "turned against spammers" *, he still
apparently loves to stretch the law and regulations and common sense decency
_JUST_ to continue to practice ABUSE (or what even the majority of his sick
supporters on Usenet would _AND HAVE_ labeled abuse). He does this to
people he does not know and for people he does not know. Just does what he can
get away with for power and praise (from sick misguided others). SICK, SICK,
SICK, SICHO, PSYCHOPATH.
NO ONE SHOULD EVER CONSIDER DOING BUSINESS WITH SANFORD WALLACE!!! He is not
a decent person. Let him live off the money he already made through
his disgusting "business" activities and let him rot in hell. He will go
broke and the fat slimeball will go to hell. He is fat, ugly, and useless.
A bit of the abuser's pathetic history is in order:
CompuServe Incorporated v. Cyber Promotions, Inc and Sanford Wallace. ,
Case No. C2-96-1070 (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 3, 1997)(Graham, J.) In this case, the
court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants, inter alia, from
sending unsolicited advertisements via e-mail to any CompuServe subscriber.
Defendants are engaged in the business of sending unsolicited "junk e-mail"
to users. On the net, this practice is referred to as "spamming." Amongst
others, defendants sent their advertisements to subscribers of CompuServe.
To effectuate such communications, defendants utilized CompuServe's computer
network, where the unsolicited e-mail was stored, and the subscriber informed
of its arrival. Subscribers thereafter had the ability to access this mail.
Numerous subscribers complained that they did not want to receive this
e-mail. As a result, and because the volume of e-mail sent by defendants
placed a significant burden on plaintiff's computer equipment (which has
a finite processing and storage capacity), CompuServe demanded that
defendants stop sending any further e-mail. CompuServe also took
technological steps to prevent defendants' e-mail from reaching its
clientele. Defendants refused to voluntarily cease sending the e-mail,
and took steps to evade the technological blocks CompuServe had put in
place. As a result, CompuServe commenced suit, seeking, inter alia,
injunctive relief to prevent defendants from sending any further
unsolicited e-mail. The court held that defendants' conduct constituted
the tort of trespass to personal property or chattels. Relying on the
Restatement (Second) of Torts, the court determined that "a trespass
to Chattel may be committed by intentionally using or intermeddling with
the chattel in possession of another. Restatement section 217." The court
held that "electronic signals generated and sent by computer have been
held to be sufficiently physically tangible to support a trespass cause
of action." To have a viable trespass to chattels claim, a party must
also meet the requirements of Restatement section 218, which mandates a
showing either that the party is (a) dispossessed of the chattel, or
(b) the condition, quality or value of the chattel has been impaired,
or (c) the possessor is deprived of the use of the chattel for a
substantial time, or (d) bodily harm is caused to the possessor, or
harm is caused to some person or thing in which the possessor has a
legally protected interest. (Restatement section 218). The court found
that defendants' conduct had caused sufficient injury to CompuServe to
meet the requirements of both sections 218 (b) and (d). As to section
218(b), the court stated: "To the extent that defendants' multitudinous
electronic mailings demand the disk space and drain the processing power
of plaintiff's computer equipment, those resources are not available to
serve CompuServe subscribers. Therefore, the value of that equipment to
CompuServe is diminished ...". The court further held that the requirements
of section 218(d) were met by the injury to CompuServe's goodwill and
reputation to with its subscribers, who objected to the receipt of
unsolicited e-mail. Defendants argued that they were permitted to
continue sending e-mail both because (a) CompuServe had invited the
world to communicate via e-mail with its subscribers over its computer
equipment, and hence negated the possibility of a trespass argument and
(b) such speech was protected by the First Amendment. The court rejected
both arguments. As to the first, the court stated that "there is at least
a tacit invitation for anyone on the to utilize plaintiff's computer
equipment to send e-mail to its subscribers." However, such consent
was negated both by CompuServe's direct communications with defendants
instructing them to refrain from sending their e-mail, and by CompuServe's
general policies governing the use by others of CompuServe's e-mail system.
The court also rejected defendants' arguments that its conduct was protected
by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Such protections "guarantee
only against abridgement by government" entities of an individual's right
to free speech. However, agreeing with the decision of the Eastern District
Court of Pennsylvania in Cyber Promotions v. America Online Inc.,
1996 WL 633702, the court held that CompuServe is a private actor, and
not a governmental entity. Accordingly, under the circumstances at bar,
the First Amendment did not permit defendants to continue the sending of
unsolicited e-mail. Lastly, of note in this case is the court's citation
of Restatement (Second) of Torts section 218 Comment (e), which provides
in part that "sufficient legal protection of the possessor's interest in
the mere inviolability of his chattel is afforded by his privilege to use
reasonable force to protect his possession against even harmless
interference." Plaintiff had attempted to exercise this right, said the
court, by attempting to block defendants' messages, without success.
Said the court "the implementation of technological means of self-help,
to the extent that reasonable measures are effective, is particularly
appropriate in this type of situation and should be exhausted before legal
action is proper." (source: http://www.phillipsnizer.com/int-art37.htm)
In short:
The court also rejected Cyber's claims that CompuServe's decision to
connect to the Internet was an implied invitation to the public to enter
its property for business purposes. The court held that CompuServe's
demand, in October 1995, that Cyber cease the e-mailings was sufficient
withdrawal of any implied invitation. Also:
Other cases brought against Cyber and its president, Sanford Wallace by
Internet service providers have produced similar results. In Concentric
Network Corp. v Wallace, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted Concentric Network (CNC) a permanent
injunction prohibiting Cyber from 1) sending unsolicited e-mail to CNC
subscribers; 2) sending or receiving e-mail via CNC; 3) misrepresenting
that any Cyber e-mail message was sent from or condoned by CNC; and 4)
distributing mailing lists containing the e-mail addresses of CNC
subscribers. In EarthLink v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., the
Los Angeles Superior Court granted EarthLink an injunction prohibiting
Cyber from sending unsolicited e-mail to EarthLink subscribers. The
court determined that Cyber's actions constituted trespass to EarthLink's
computer systems. (sourse: http://www.info-law.com/lost.html)
*Footnote: SW apparently has not even been able to curb his psychopathic
tendencies to stop spamming (in one way or another). Although he uses
SEVERAL email addresses and posting services, some of his names and
email addresses appear on over *** 70 *** Usenet spam reports!! He is
simply a sick psycho. Whatever spam he no longer engages in is likely
JUST because in recent court case(s), he has been prohibited BY LAW from
continuing his activity.
Regarding this, quoting another source speaking about the
outcome of the case between Spamford and Earthlink: ...
"The decision also prohibits Cyber Promotions and its founder, Sanford Wallace,
from engaging in a comprehensive list of spam-related activities in the
future." In addition to the $2 million settlement, EarthLink said Wallace
agreed to be held personally liable for $1 million if he sends spam to
EarthLink members or enables anyone else to spam them. Wallace also will be
held liable if he violates a number of other restrictions, including
distribution of EarthLink member e-mail addresses.
Since last year, Cyber Promotions has lost legal battles with America Online
and Bigfoot, a company that provides e-mail addresses.
Cyber Promotions has virtually been out of business since October
when Agis, its backbone Internet service provider, terminated Cyber
Promotions' connection. "
(source: http://money.cnn.com/1998/03/30/technology/earthlink/)
IN SHORT, SANFORD WALLACE IS A WORTHLESS PATHETIC LOSER, who can kiss my
ass. HIS RECENT ACTIVITIES JUST SHOW HIM TO BE A WORSE LOSER THAN ANYONE
WOULD HAVE EXPECTED. MANY WHO THOUGHT SANFORD HAD SOME INTELLECTUAL
CAPACITY NOW SEE HIM AS A PSYCHOPATHIC MORON.