Cartooney Threat
Amy Bushyeager
Amy is admitted to practice in Washington, D.C. and Maryland, and is a member of the Federal Communications Bar Association. She received her B.S., summa cum laude, from Ohio University (1993), and her J.D., cum laude, from Georgetown University Law Center (1998). (Mintz & Company Directory)

Amy Bushyeager

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Many people of the newsgroup that were dragged into the Mintz & Co bulk email threat have stated that some form of "closure" is necessary so we can consider the issue solved (or at least "moot").

Since the firm of Mintz and company does not appear willing to discuss the matter, perhaps it's time to craft a press release and send it to the newspapers in the markets served by Mintz, et. al. Perhaps the press could get the answers that we cannot.

To get the ball rolling, here's a rough outline with "exhibits" attached. Anybody want to join in and assist?

George Crissman

Spammer's Attorney Threatens Usenet Newsgroup Participants

A. Bulk Email Threat (Exhibit 1) From Attorney Amy Bushyeager

  1. Sent to participants and non-particpants alike.
  2. Ignored evidence files at SPEWS and SPAMHAUS.
  3. Attorney requested responses directly.

B. Responses from Newsgroup Participants

  1. Presented evidence of disputing claim (Exhibits 2 & 11).
  2. Some disclaimed any involvement in the issue (Exhibit 12).
  3. Incident caused an investigation into both the attorney and the client by the newsgroup participants.

C. Results of the Investigation into Mintz & Company

  1. They have a misconfigured email system (postmaster@ & abuse@ both bounce) that requires correction (RFC 2142).
  2. Amy's international orientation may indicate she is ignorant of existing prohibitions (Exhibit 3).
  3. The firm has mishandled cases in the past (Exhibit 8).
  4. The firm has represented inveterate spammers (DiSisto) in the past (Exhibit 13).
  5. Client of Mintz & Co. continued spamming (Exhibit 7).
  6. Ethics complaint filed with the Bar Association (Exhibit 14).

D. Still needed: closure

  1. Neither the attorney nor the management of Mintz & Co have acknowledged or answered solicited communications. (Exhibits 4, 5, & 6)
  2. The question remains: are the attorneys involved proceeding with their case, or has it been abandoned? (Exhibit 9)
  3. An answer from the law firm is eagerly awaited by the contributors to the Usenet newsgroup (Exhibit 10)

=========== Exhibit 1 ================

I got this in the last few hours or so--dunno what it about.

It has an attachment that I can't read (ASCII world here, don't you

From Tue Apr 30 15:17:56 2002
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:05:52 -0400
From: "Bushyeager, Amy" <>
To: "Bushyeager, Amy" <>
Subject: Minh Nguyen and One Source Computer Corp.

Dear Reader:

This email is to inform you that One Source Computer Corp. has sent cease and desist letters to several organizations who have (i) publicly accused the company and its principal, Minh Nguyen, of engaging in spamming activity, or (ii) interfered with the company's business relationships by lodging spamming-related complaints with the company's telecommunications service provider as well as various Internet service providers.  An example of one such cease and desist letter is attached to this email. 

One Source Computer Corp. has not engaged in spamming activity as has been alleged.  Please be advised that One Source Computer Corp. plans to vigilantly protect its reputation in the marketplace.  As a result, One Source Computer Corp. will pursue all legal remedies at its disposal.

If you have any questions or concerns, please respond directly to me.
Best regards,
Amy Bushyeager
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC  20004
Phone:  (202) 434-7300
Fax:  (202) 434-7400


============= Exhibit 2 =================

I sent this to Amy to see what floats to the surface...

The following was recieved by e-mail. I was wondering if it was sent by your firm, or for that matter if your firm was even aware of it's existance.

I find it odd that such a threat would be sent via E-Mail, much less sent at all, considering the overwhelming evidence to the fact that One Source Computer Corp is the parent company of long time Uncolicited Commercial Email (UCE or spam) sources. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... it is not illegal to call it a duck.

Detailed evidence of spamming can be provided via independant third party archiving in's USENET archive. A USENET group called news.admin.abuse.sightings was established to archive e-mail spam. People who receive spam from a company send a copy with full headers to this group for future reference. One Source Computer company and it's sub-companies have a total of 298 archived spams. It has been estimated that less than 1% of spam recipients archive messages in this way.

For spam directly from One Source Computer Corp go to
(long URL, you may need to remove line breaks)

For spam from their sub-companies:
see the following links:


============== Exhibit 3 ===================

On Thu, 02 May 2002 04:26:02 GMT, (Dave Something) wrote:

>I did a little Google search on her tonight, and she's been involved
>in spam issues for her firm. I found this link:

I decided to check Google as well, and found that Amy's article with Donna Lampert and Fernando Laguarda ("Overview of Internet Legal and Regulatory Issues") turns up frequently.

In addition, she has weighed-in on Internet delivery of music and the following two issues:


Summit: The Digital Divide

Information tools, such as the personal computer and the Internet, are increasingly critical to economic success and personal advancement. In early July, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration issued a report, Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide, that found a growing gap between those with access to these tools and those without.


Internet Law Update

In today's fast-changing regulatory climate, every business-not just online businesses-must be aware of its liabilities under current privacy regulations as well as the potential for new regulatory burdens. This advisory outlines the requirements of the EU Directive and the safe harbor principles issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) to help American businesses comply with those requirements. The advisory then reviews current legislative proposals here in the U.S., and the role that the FTC is anticipated to play in regulating online privacy in the future


Based on the scope of her prior work, it looks like her viewpoint is at the national and international level. In other words, she may be unaware of:

a) state-level laws (,

b) the Terms Of Service / Acceptable Use Policy contract provisions ( scroll down to Section 1, entitled "PROHIBITED / ABUSIVE ACTIVITIES") that accompany an Internet account, or

c) the existance of prohibitions such as RFC 1855 (

It may be necessary to provide her with a background education on the topic to assist her in her decisions.

George Crissman

=========== Exhibit 4 =================

On 2 May 2002 12:32:13 -0700,(Mahatma Kane Jeeves) wrote:

>George Crissman <> wrote in message news:<>...
>> It may be necessary to provide her with a background education
>> on the topic to assist her in her decisions.
>> George Crissman
>This is, hands-down, the finest statement I've seen on the
>bestcheapstuff, Bushyeager, C&D subject yet.
>You would be doing both her and her firm a favor by alerting them to
>the activities of her client.

Well, yeah, but she's got to respond to my previous email to her (the one she requested in her bulk mailing). So far, we do not have a dialog.
George Crissman

=============== Exhibit 5 ===================

On Thu, 02 May 2002 18:02:11 GMT, GregR <>

>Gary Woods wrote:
>> The _real_ question at this point is, has anybody who replied to Ms.
>> Bushyeager as she asked them to do been acknowledged?
>Not here.

Nor here ... perhaps she is remaining silent on advice of counsel ...?


============== Exhibit 6 =============

On Wed, 01 May 2002 12:11:12 -0400, chester <>

>in article OIMz8.4016$D%5.2683@sccrnsc01, Morely Dotes at
> wrote on 5/1/02 3:22 AM:
>> In article <Xns9200B038E91D791116243242@>, "Bob S."
>> <> wrote:
>>> "Amy is an associate practicing in the Federal and Communications sections
>>> of the firm's Washington office. She specializes in privacy law and other
>>> e-commerce related issues, copyright, and antitrust law"
>> Amy is now also the proximate cause of at least one spam complaint about
>Oh I would say I could count at least 20 LARTS from the posts that I have

Make that 21, as, not having had a reply from Ms. Bushyeager, I have just written to Mr. Mintz, forwarding Ms. Bushyeager's message and mentioning this newsgroup. <g>

Proud Citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia

=============== Exhibit 7 =============

Out of curiosity this morning I searched for "" in the last couple of weeks' SMTP logs of 3 UXN mail severs, and found a large amount of spam from the spammers. UXN has been bouncing One Source Computer Corp spam for many weeks.

The bounces show was spamming to addresses scraped off "Millions" CDROMs, with 'from' addresses including:


3 of the UXN addresses One Source Computer Corp were spamming to were actually SBL Spamtraps.

Each time One Source Computer Corp spammed UXN servers their mailer ignored UXN's SMTP Banner: "NO UCE. We trace and terminate spammers"

14:31:07 SMTP(tcp) Connection request from []
14:31:07 SMTP-484([]) Sending 220-Stalker Internet Mail
Server V.1.8b8 is ready. ESMTP is spoken here. NO UCE. We trace and
terminate spammers.
14:31:07 SMTP-484 SPAM? Host is blacklisted per RBL
with result []
14:31:07 SMTP-484 Input Line: HELO Aster18
14:31:08 SMTP-484 Sending 250 has logged that you
gave the fake hostname: Aster18
14:31:08 SMTP-484 Input Line: MAIL FROM:<>

Having seen the amount of spam from the spammers, it's incredibly silly for One Source Computer Corp to even begin to claim they're "not spammers", let alone pay a cartooney to send people "shut up and eat your spam" letters.

Steve Linford
The Spamhaus Project

=========== Exhibit 8 ===========

In <>, writes:
>Some things that have piqued my interest.
>"Firm" has a Pennsy address in DC.
>"Firm" has a lot of partnes and associates with unlikely sounding names.
>This looks more and more like a scam. Has anybody seen Ron lately?

The firm is quite real. In fact, within the past two years I've had to deal with more than one unutterably stupid legal position taken by them (in various letters from partner Cameron Kerry, , who has a United States Senator as a brother). We handed them their heads in several different proceedings in federal court.

And for the record, is indisputably a spammer. I've gotten their stuff recently, too. Come and get me, Amy -- I'm ten blocks away from you in DC.

- Mark Eckenwiler

========== Exhibit 9 =========

shiksaa wrote:
> On 5 May 2002 12:15:01 -0700, (Fred the Red
> Shirt) wrote:
> >> This attorney takes her client's word without even attempting to
> >> verify his claims have any merit? Sorry, Vernon, but that strikes me
> >> as, at the very least, sloppy. I don't care if she gets into
> >> 'trouble' for doing it but I damn sure let her know I was not
> >> pleased that she included me in her attempt at intimidation.
> >
> >Why do you argue that she made no attempt to verify the claim?
> Gee, because she shotgunned the same crap to people who never
> expressed any opinion of her client at all? Five minutes searching
> Google should have told her something was wrong in spamland.
> --
> "Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."
> - H. G. Wells

i have it on pretty good authority (not unimpeachable, but credible) that ms. bushyeager will not be communicating any further on this issue by postal mail, email, nor service of process.


======= Exhibit 10 ========

On Sun, 05 May 2002 15:11:41 -0500, adam brower <>
>i have it on pretty good authority
>(not unimpeachable, but credible)
>that ms. bushyeager will not be
>communicating any further on this
>issue by postal mail, email, nor
>service of process.

Well, SOMEbody from her law firm better express some appropriate apologies for her little stunt. I want some decent closure to this whole distressing matter, preferably archived in Google for future reference.

I received her intimidating message, and I replied to it as requested, and I provided proof of her client's spamming. I want an apology, and I want it NOW. Admission of error is mandatory: humble would be nice, but I will accept polite.

Proud Citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia

========= Exhibit 11 ============

Ms. Bushyeager,

I understand that you have been sending out Cease and Desist letters regarding claims that One Source Computer Corp/ is spamming. To wit, your client's claim is that One Source Computer Corp/ does not spam (sending out unsolicited bulk (usually commercial) email), and those claiming that your client does so should stop this practise.

Ms. Bushyeager, I hate to inform you that your client, One Source Computer Corp/ does indeed spam, as even the most trivial of Internet web searches would have established. It seems to me dangerous for a lawyer to make claims on a client's behalf which are so easily demonstrated to be completely and totally untrue.

Furthermore, the employees of the company I work for have received thousands of these spams from One Source Computer Corp/bestcheapstuff, and we have hundreds of their complaints on permanent file. So much so that we have initiated procedures to block all of One Source Corp/bestcheapstuff email from ever reaching any of our users.

I recommend that you advise your client that they are spamming, and they should cease forthwith. Until they do so, we have no intention of accepting email from them ever again.


Chris Lewis

======== Exhibit 12 ========

In article <msXz8.18229$>, wrote:

> On Wed, 01 May 2002 11:33:45 -0700, shiksaa <>
> wrote:
> >On 1 May 2002 10:52:39 -0700, Jason Corley
> ><> wrote:
> >
> >>What people are angry at is the position of the client and the ignorance
> >>of the attorney with respect to our position that spam is theft (a
> >>position that most people in the world do not share - they know they don't
> >>like spam, but they don't know where the costs go, or don't think about
> >>it.) Mailing out a nastygram in this fashion is not, in my book, an
> >>unreasonable thing for an attorney to do. If I were on the Bar Committee,
> >>I would dismiss any ethical complaints out of hand.
> >
> >I'm angry that she attempted to intimidate me and I didn't even post
> >a word about her slimy client. Please go read what I did post and
> >you'll see that it had absolutely zilch to do with One Source.
> >
> >Please check the facts before making a blanket statement about what
> >people are angry about in this particular case.
> Ditto, here, though at first I thought it was about the LARTs I had sent
> for the spam I received from One Source Computer Corp. in January.

I never sent any larts about them at all, nor do I recall ever even commenting on them here before now, not even in the thread about their termination by Tiffiany, yet I still received it as well.

========= Exhibit 13 ========

"Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." wrote:

> On Wed, 1 May 2002, Ken Hooper wrote:
> > I suggest that people bait the law firm, who in turn will rejoice at the
> > opportunity to send you more meaningless threats, and then send the spammers
> > a bill for it. It's good clean fun.
> Big problem with the plan!
> Bushy and friends have fallen silent.
> One blast--that's it.
> I have to ask the question: While we are all watching the smoke and lights,
> what's going on behind our backs?

Without wanting to be too shrill here, consider this: Mintz, have acted on behalf of 2 (that I know of) nasty spammers: DiSisto and Nguyen. I could easily imagine that Mintz's behavior could be seen as "Spam Support Services", and be considered as justification for listing in SPEWS.

Now, some would say that everyone, regardless of who they are or what they've done is entitled to legal representation. But, at what cost to society? A couple of things can happen. 1) Mintz becomes competent at representing spammers and may actually win in court for them. 2) Mintz becomes known in the spammer community as the place to go when things get really really hot.

In either case, I don't think it's a good thing. I say: List Mintz to discourage spam support services. Not list 'em forever, say, just a month. Like: all of the month of June.

Can we have some discussion on this?

====== Exhibit 14 ========

In article <>,
>> I'm ready to do that now. Got snail addresses/landline numbers for those Bar
>> Ass.s?
>For the DC Bar
>Complaint form
>mail it to:
>Office of Bar Counsel
>Board on Professional Responsibility
>District of Columbia Court of Appeals
>515 Fifth Street NW
>Building A, Room 127
>Washington, DC 20001

Mailed, USPS Priority Mail.

Want SPEWS-filtered and SBL-filtered email?
Special rates for special people (TINLC) addresses now available!

Internet Data Mining Contents Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 by George Crissman. All rights reserved worldwide. Page design by George Crissman,, updated 7/5/2002.