Spyware Sucks
“There is no magic fairy dust protecting Macs" – Dai Zovi, author of “The Mac Hacker’s Handbook"

FTC versus Innovative Marketing et al – Sam Jain and Kirsty Ross respond (and other developments)

July 1st 2009 in Uncategorized

Sam Jain

I would have loved to shine a light on some nice juicy arguments but, alas, it wasn’t to be.  The entirety of Jain’s answer compromised just a few types of response, as follows:

Paragraph text version 1)

“Paragraph X of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is required”

Paragraph text version 2)

“Paragraph X of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent Paragraph X of the Complaint contains factual allegations to which a response is required, Mr Jain lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies those allegations”

Paragraph text version 3)

“The subject matter of the Complaint in this case is the basis for an ongoing investigation conducted by the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.  Exercising his rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, Mr Jain respectfully declines to answer the allegations contained in paragraph X on the ground that his answer might tend to incriminate him.  Mr Jain further respectfully requests that such declination have the same procedural effect under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d), as if he specifically denied the allegations.”

Paragraph text version 4)

“Exercising his rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, Mr Jain respectfully declines to answer the allegations contained in Paragraph X on the ground that his answer might tend to incriminate him.  Mr Jain further respectfully requests that such declination have the same procedural effect under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d), as if he specifically denied the allegations.”

And so it goes on, with variations to the same theme such as “Mr Jain lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations… and therefore denies those allegations”.

Finally, Mr Jain puts forth three Affirmative Defenses:

"Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted", and

"Any injury allegedly incurred was not caused by Mr Jain, and any injury resulted from superseding or intervening events outside the knowledge or control of Mr Jain", and

"Mr Jain expressly reserves the right to assert any and all other defenses to the Amended Complaint as they become known".

In short, it is 17 pages saying pretty much nothing at all…

Kristy Ross

Kristy Ross has also filed her Answer (31 pages long).  It, too, contains various denials and coy Fifth Amendments incrimination demurs, but she does admit (aka agree) that the FTC is an independent agency of the US Government created by statute, that it enforces Section 5(a) of the FTC Act and is authorized to initiate federal district court proceeding.

Her defenses are:

“The statement of any defense does not assume the burden of proof for any issue as to which applicable law places the burden upon plaintiff. Defendant expressly reserves the right to amend and/or supplement her defenses or assert any matters in avoidance of plaintiff’s claim which may become appropriate as discovery proceeds in this case”; and

“Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”; and

“Any injury allegedly incurred was not caused by Defendant Ross and any injury resulted from superseding or intervening events outside the knowledge or control of Defendant Ross”.

 

Innovative Marketing, Inc and Daniel Sundin

The FTC has lodged a Motion for Entry of Default for want of answer or other defense, with responses due by 13 July 2009.  Bearing in mind both parties have ignored the proceedings so far, and are unrepresented, I doubt that IM or Sundin are going to acknowledge the FTC’s lawsuit now.

 

Marc D’Souza

Arguments via Motion and Reply continue as D’Souza attempts to have the complaint against him dismissed.

 

James Reno and ByteHosting

The Judge has signed the Reno Orders, so that is all over and done with.


Comments are closed.

  Back on the 11th I reminded everybody that I expected the proposed stipulated final order between the FTC, Reno and ByteHosting to be filed within days.  As luck would have it, a Final Order For Permanent Injunction and Monetary Judgment as to James M. Reno and ByteHosting Internet Services, LLC […]

Previous Entry

 
Normally when I write about malvertizing on this blog, the “goal” of the malvertizement has been to expose victims to fake security software (aka fraudware).  In one case, the “goal” was to expose the victim to a pornographic web site (complete with streaming video and sound on the opening page – mlb.com was hit […]

Next Entry

Archives