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 – developments

July 24th 2009 in Uncategorized

Innovative Marketing and Daniel Sundin continue to ignore proceedings and are unrepresented.

Maurice D’Souza

Maurice D’Souza’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (paper number 90) has been DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

 

 

Sam Jain

Sam has been busy, filing a motion for protective order requiring deposition to proceed by written questions (paper number 121).  It was claimed in the Motion that "Given the significant Fifth Amendment privilege objections Mr. Jain is compelled to raise, or risk waiving, in response to Plaintiff’s substantive questions, proceeding initially with the deposition by written questions will present the cleanest possible record and will permit full briefing and argument on the complex factual and legal bases underlying his privilege claims".  The Motion also claimed "significant criminal jeopardy" because of the ongoing investigation by the US Attorney’s Office (Northern District of Illinois) for alleged wire fraud and computer fraud and, amazingly, because he is is a fugitive (he has had a bench warrant issued against him in "unrelated proceedings" in the US District Court (Northern District of California)).

The motion has been DENIED.  Now we wait to see if Jain actually turns up for an oral deposition.  The notice of deposition attached to Jain’s motion recorded that the deposition was due to commence on 20 July 2009 at 10 a.m. Eastern Time.  Obviously that needs to be rescheduled.

The motion to modify the preliminary injunction filed by Sam Jain (paper number 58) was also DENIED.

As a reminder, Jain and his cohorts had a bad day back on 9 June 2009 when:

  • Sam Jain’s Motion to Stay (Paper No. 45) was DENIED;
  • Kristy Ross’s Motion to Temporary Stay (Paper No. 48) was DENIED;
  • FTC’s Motion for Order Holding Sam Jain and Kristy Ross in Contempt of Court and Requiring the Repatriation of their Assets (Paper No. 49) was DENIED;
  • Kristy Ross’s Motion to Strike or in the Alternative Motion for an Extension of Time (Paper No. 51) was declared MOOT;
  • Sam Jain’s Motion to Strike or in the Alternative Motion for an Extension of Time (Paper No. 52) was declared MOOT;
  • Sam Jain’s Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction (Paper No. 58) was DENIED IN PART, with the Court withholding a ruling on the requested modification of the asset freeze;
  • Sam Jain’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7) and 19 (Paper No. 60) was DENIED;
  • Kristy Ross’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7) and 19 (Paper No. 61) was DENIED;
  • Marc D’Souza’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7) and 19 (Paper No. 70) was DENIED; and
  • Marc D’Souza’s Motion for Temporary Stay and Modification of Preliminary Injunction (Paper No. 71) was DENIED IN PART, with the Court withholding a ruling on the requested modification of the asset freeze.

Ok, onward and upward.  Hopefully the deposition of Sam Jain will be scheduled to take place as soon as possible.


Comments are closed.

I have expressed concerned about DIRECTI in the past few posts, and I now have even more cause for concern.
Paul Ferguson of TrendMicro let me know about a slew of DIRECTI registered domains which are serving up exploits.  How is this for a list (all of which were registered on 22 July 2009):
IP 78.47.25.168: q0i.in, […]

Previous Entry

Regular readers of this blog will know that Sam Jain filed a motion for protective order requiring deposition to proceed by written questions, a motion which was DENIED on 22 July 2009. Sam Jain has now refused to be deposed, even refusing an offer from the FTC to be deposed by video-conference from […]

Next Entry

Archives