Affidavit of Tim Bolen

I, Tim Bolen, under oath, state as follows:

1. Professionally, I am  (a)  the President of JuriMed Public Relations research Group, Inc; a Crisis Management Consultant company in the health care industry.  (b)  a Consumer Advocate specializing in the problems of “cutting-edge” health care.
2. As a Crisis Management Consultant, my clients are almost exclusively “cutting-edge” health care practitioners.  For them we provide a wide variety of services including assistance to their attorneys, expert witnesses for Court cases, organization and coordination of support groups, media positions, legislative support, promotion, convention services, etc.
3. As a Consumer Advocate I am a severe critic of the existing US health care system.  I am a speaker at health conventions nationwide, regularly a guest on radio shows, and quoted in magazines and newspapers.  The thing I am most known for is that I am the owner, and author of the internet “Millions of Health Freedom Fighters – Newsletter,” a subscriber non-commercial internet newsletter based in California.
4. My newsletter, its computer systems, etc., are completely lawful, and compliant with California and US laws, including all anti-spam laws.   I have roughly 285,000 subscribers. I have been operating this newsletter, a critique of  “the politics of health care in the US,” since 1999.  Copies of all of those newsletters (over 500 editions) can be found at my websites www.bolenreport.com and www.quackpotwatch.org.
5. My newsletter is extremely controversial, and generates angry discussion of health issues.  My articles are carefully researched.  I raise issues not found elsewhere in the media.  Indeed, my comments about the problems in the US health care system cannot be found in mainstream media until, sometimes, months after I broadcast a story.
6. Of my 285,000 newsletter subscribers – I have about 12,000 media, 85,000 employees of government agencies involved in health care, 30,000 health care activists,15,000 environmentalists, 130,000 health care or health industry professionals, and the rest miscellaneous.
7. I have been attacked, because of my political positions, by an anti-spammer vigilante group, calling themselves the Spamhaus/SPEWS project, on several occasions.  Recently they have been able to completely block my ability to broadcast my newsletter to my subscribers.  ISPs are now afraid to host my newsletter as Spamhaus/SPEWS will shut them down for hosting me.
8. Currently, my websites are up and running, after I moved them, but I cannot broadcast my newsletter.  Spamhaus/SPEWS falsely claimed “reason” for blocking me is that I supposedly am a “criminal,” in that I send out bulk emails.  But, as shown below, their original written reason used in the first blocklisting tells an entirely different story.  And when I complained to them about their activities, and threatened legal action, they went out of their way to ruin my reputation on the internet.
9. I have discovered that Spamhaus/SPEWS is  a “vigilante” type organization falsely characterizing themselves as an “anti-spammer” group. They make up their own definition of “spam” and that definition appears to change from day-to-day.  Their definition(s) differ, considerably, from the ones enacted into both US and State laws. In essence anyone they don’t like gets labeled as a spammer and significant damage is done to those victims. The Spamhaus/SPEWS membership, or whatever they call themselves, is a secret.  Those members, or “volunteers,”  use “fake” email addresses and identities.
10. I have learned, for instance, the identities of several of the Spamhaus/SPEWS “volunteers,” and have discovered that many of them have business interests that compete with those victims they select for “blocking.” I have also learned that several of their “volunteers” are acting in their capacity to benefit their employers.
11. Spamhaus/SPEWS has, as described below, constantly interfered with my lawful computer system and its operation, and they have or damaged that system, or its operation, in several ways.  These attacks, separately and aggregately, I have discovered, violate both Federal and State laws.
12. In US law – these attacks are a violation of title 18, United States Code Sections 1030 (Fraud and related activity in relation to a computer),  371 (Conspiracy to commit offense), 241 (Conspiracy against rights), 875(d) (Interstate communications),   1343 (fraud by wire, radio, or television), 1951 (Interference with commerce by threats or violence), 1952 (Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises).
13. In State law – these acts are a violation of State of California Penal Code Section 502 (c) (3), (5) (Computer Crimes) and 518-524 (Extortion), and Missouri Revised Statutes 569.090(1) (Tampering) and 569.097 (Tampering with computer equipment).
14. Since I am based in California it is important to note that CPC 502 (Computer Crimes) makes it a crime, in California, to interfere, damage, etc., “lawfully created computer data and computer systems.”  My system fits this definition.
15. 15.   The Background:  In 2003 the US Congress passed a law called the “Can-Spam Act of 2003.” That law defined what could, and could not, be done with“commercial” email broadcasting on the internet within the United States. The law is specific.  The enforcement of the law was handed over to the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
16. The Can-Spam Act of 2003 was designed to regulate only one kind of email broadcasting – “commercial” email broadcasting, and there was no intent, and the FTC has taken great pains to explain that the Act, and its enforcement of the Act, does not, and will not seek to regulate “free speech,” only “commercial speech,” and then only certain kinds of “commercial speech.”
17. However, “Spamhaus/SPEWS,” after failing to convince the US Congress to make the anti-spam law much more to their liking (much more restrictive) is enforcing their version of the law – thereby intentionally denying, and infringing on, the rights of Americans.  Spamhaus/SPEWS claims that any bulk email broadcasting that isn’t “opt-in only” is a criminal act – and of course, by US, and most nation’s law, that’s simply not true.  Their bellicose, and rejected by ALL governments, argument is that “no one should get an email they didn’t specifically ask for…”
18. The leaders of the “anti-spammer vigilantes” are presented by several so-called “blocklist” providers.  A “blocklist” is a device that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) subscribe to that “supposedly” is a list of “criminal spammer’s” (i.e.; violators of the US Can-Spam Act).  That list is organized by the IP addresses (of the so-called spammers). ISPs that subscribe to those “blocklists” then block those “spammer” IPs on that list from delivering mail to their own customers – supposedly keeping criminal spam away from the ISPs own customers.
19. Ideally, this system should have some merit, but where it falls down is that the “blocklist” providers DO NOT use the US legal definition of “spam” to “block” IPs – they use their own – and they make that definition up as they go along – still calling their victims “criminals.” It is possible with this system to block real spammers, but for the most part it appears they block lawfully operating legitimate businesses from reaching their customers.  Spamhaus alone, claims to block emails to over 500 million recipients.
20. The largest “blocklist” providers are www.spamhaus.org, and www.spews.org They are best known for giving out false, and misleading information.
21. The “Spamhaus/SPEWS conspiracy,” use two primary Google internet discussion groups for their purposes.  The first called NANAE (news.admin.net-abuse.email ) is the place where, the policies and attitudes  of the “anti-spammer vigilantes,” can be found.  I collected over a thousand emails from this group, after entering their discussion and asking for information about Spamhaus – and was confronted with sheer “malice,” and “actual malice” for my efforts. I’ll explain below.  In the second discussion group, called NANABl, the participants demanded of my ISP upstream provider that they not only turn off my service, but that they destroy my data, as a condition of having the blocklist removed from all of their customers (details below).
22. Internet Service Providers (ISP)s, who use their “blocklists,” are unaware of these “blocklist” providers intentional deceit.  www.spamhaus.org, for instance, the largest of the “blocklists,” fraudulently labels anyone, and everyone who sends out bulk emails using US Can-Spam Act 2003 guidelines, “criminals.”  US ISPs, having no other source of information on what constitutes “spam” or “not spam” are misled into believing that a “listing” on www.spamhaus.org, or the other vigilante“blocklists,” indicates that the “listee” is a “criminal” and reacts accordingly, destroying honest businesses, and organizations’ ability to communicate, via email with their customers or constituents.
23. Moreover, ISPs that refuse Spamhaus/SPEWS rules are then, themselves, blocked until they submit to Spamhaus/SPEWS will.
24. 24.   In effect, businesses, and organizations in the US, are victimized, put on trial by a secret organization, with no legitimate due process, and destroyed, overnight, on the whim of a hidden group of vigilantes.  I’m one of those victims.
25. 25.   In California, however, this action by those vigilantes, is a crime – either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on what they do.  In Missouri, where my previous server was shut down, these actions are also crimes.
26. 26.   The State of California last passed a revision to the California Penal Code Section 502 (Computer Crimes) in 2002.  The latest revision makes it a crime, in California, to interfere, damage, etc., “lawfully created computer data and computer systems.”  And that’s just what the vigilantes are doing every time they interfere with a lawful system in California.  California Penal Code Section (CPC) 502 (Computer Crimes) says, in its introduction:

(a) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section to expand the degree of protection afforded to individuals, businesses, and governmental agencies from tampering, interference, damage, and unauthorized access to lawfully created computer data and computer systems. The Legislature finds and declares that the proliferation of computer technology has resulted in a concomitant proliferation of computer crime and other forms of unauthorized access to computers, computer systems, and computer data.

The Legislature further finds and declares that protection of the integrity of all types and forms of lawfully created computers, computer systems, and computer data is vital to the protection of the privacy of individuals as well as to the well-being of financial institutions, business concerns, governmental agencies, and others within this state that lawfully utilize those computers, computer systems, and data.

(c) Except as provided in subdivision (h), any person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a public offense

(5) Knowingly and without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer services or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user of a computer, computer system, or computer network.

(8) Knowingly introduces any computer contaminant into any computer, computer system, or computer network.

(d)(1) Any person who violates any of the provisions of paragraph (1), (2), (4), or (5) of subdivision (c) is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three years, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

27. Missouri Revised Statutes (MRS) Chapter 569.097 (Computer Crimes) says:

Tampering with computer equipment, penalties.

569.097. 1. A person commits the crime of tampering with computer equipment if he knowingly and without authorization or without reasonable grounds to believe that he has such authorization:

(2) Modifies, destroys, damages, or takes any computer, computer system, or computer network.

2. Tampering with computer equipment is a class A misdemeanor, unless:

(1) The offense is committed for the purpose of executing any scheme or artifice to defraud or obtain any property, the value of which is five hundred dollars or more, in which case it is a class D felony; or (2) The damage to such computer equipment or to the computer, computer system, or computer network is five hundred dollars or more but less than one thousand dollars, in which case it is a class D felony; or (3) The damage to such computer equipment or to the computer, computer system, or computer network is one thousand dollars or greater, in which case it is a class C felony.

28. And, Missouri Revised Statutes (MRS) Chapter 569.090 says:

Tampering in the second degree.

569.090. 1. A person commits the crime of tampering in the second degree if he or she:

(1) Tampers with property of another for the purpose of causing substantial inconvenience to that person or to another.

3. Tampering in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor unless:

(1) Committed as a second or subsequent violation of subdivision (4) of subsection 1, in which case it is a class D felony;

(2) The defendant has a prior conviction or has had a prior finding of guilt pursuant to paragraph (a) of subdivision (3) of subsection 3 of section 570.030, RSMo, section 570.080, RSMo, or subdivision (2) of subsection 1 of this section, in which case it is a class C felony.

 

28. The First Round of Criminal Acts:
29. CPC 502 Violation (Count 1) and 18 USC 1030 (Count 1):  On, or about February 8th, 2006, the group calling itself Spamhaus added 12,000 IP addresses of the clients (ALL of their clients) of a server company called Wholesale Internet, based in Kansas City, Missouri,  to their “blocklist” for the purpose of extorting some specific actions from Wholesale Internet – specifically, the removal from Wholesale Internet’s servers, of eight (8) lawfully operating US businesses.  I was one of those.
30. 30.   The other seven businesses, according to the owners of Wholesale Internet, were all “Can-Spam compliant” email marketers, and I was a non-commercial email newsletter.  My server at Wholesale Internet was part of my lawfully created computer data and computer systems,” which began in California, was controlled from California, and reported back to my California system.   This action by Spamhaus violates CPC 502 (c)(5).
31. 31.   MRS Violation Chapter 569.097 (Counts 1 through 12,000) On, or about February 8th, 2006, the group calling itself Spamhaus added 12,000 IP addresses of the clients (ALL of their clients) of a server company called Wholesale Internet, based in Kansas City, Missouri,  to their “blocklist” for the purpose of extorting some specific actions from Wholesale Internet – specifically, the removal from Wholesale Internet’s servers, of eight (8) lawfully operating US businesses.  I was one of those.
32. 32.   The other seven businesses, according to the owners of Wholesale Internet, were all “Can-Spam compliant” email marketers, and I was a non-commercial email newsletter.  My server, in Missouri, at Wholesale Internet was part of my lawfully created computer data and computer systems,” which began in California, was controlled from California, and reported back to my California system.  The System, in fact, begins on my desk.  This action by Spamhaus violates MRS Chapter 569.097.
33. MRS Violation Chapter 569.090 (Counts 12,001 through 24,001) On, or about February 8th, 2006, the group calling itself Spamhaus added 12,000 IP addresses of the clients (ALL of their clients) of a server company called Wholesale Internet, based in Kansas City, Missouri,  to their “blocklist” for the purpose of extorting some specific actions from Wholesale Internet – specifically, the removal from Wholesale Internet’s servers, of eight (8) lawfully operating US businesses.  I was one of those.  This action by Spamhaus violates MRS Chapter 569.090.
34. CPC 502 Violation (Count 2) On, or about February 10th, 2006, the group calling itself Spamhaus, through their representative “HH” re-listed me, after my complaint to them, on their “blocklists,” and announced to the world, in sheer “malice”  that I was, in their words “a fruitcake.”  They said:

patrick timothy bolen – healthcare-alliance.com

Fruitcakes get a bad rap. Being a fruitcake is all very well, as is telling people about it, and even being given as an unsolicited gift at Christmas time is okay.

However, unsolicited email to get people to read your fruitcake recipies is not acceptable. Opt-OUT is not an option, not even for fruit.

33. They then, out of sheer “malice” added links to my political opposites, as follows:

About Patrick Timothy Bolen About the listee by a respected M.D. About the listee by a respected Canadian M.D. Tim Bolen’s own site 1 and 2 newer About the listee, by the listee. Choose which one to believe. Exercise jurisprudence when doing so.

34. This “blocking” caused an unknown percentage of my subscribers (we think about 20%) NOT to receive my newsletter – as their customer ISPs, not knowing of Spamhaus’s fraudulent statements, blocked my broadcast IP addresses. This action by Spamhaus violates CPC 502 (c)(5). and (8).
35. CPC 502 Violations (Count 3 through 13) On, or about February 10th, February 23, March 9th, March 24th, April 17th, May 1st, May 22nd, May 31st, June 4th,  June 8th,  and June 27th, 2006 the group calling itself Spamhaus continued to operate, despite demands and warnings, an illegal “blocklist “ of my email broadcast IP addresses – falsely informing their ISP customers that I was a “criminal spammer.”  Each “blocking” of my broadcasts increased our broadcast time, from a normal seven hours to 20 hours, using up our lawful computer services in violation of CPC 502 (c) (3) and (5). In addition, about 20% of our total subscriber base was blocked – so, each time, about 57,000 of our lawful subscribers were not receiving their newsletters.  We had many complaints.  This action by Spamhaus violates CPC 502 (c)(3)and (5).
36. CPC 502 Violations (Counts14 through 627,013) –  As noted above, approximately 57,000 (or more) of our subscribers were denied their lawful newsletter each time the broadcast went out, due to Spamhaus’s illegal “blocking,” not allowing us to connect with our lawful subscribers, each time.  There were eleven broadcasts during this period for a total of 627,000 individual violations of CPC 502 section (c)(5).
37. Between the Rounds of Criminal Acts:
38. Having no success at convincing Spamhaus, and its volunteers to leave me alone,  I decided to gather information for a legal action against Spamhaus, and those volunteers in California.  To accomplish this I entered the discussion on the NANAE newsgroup, asking for information on Spamhaus’s alleged “volunteers,” etc.  I received over a thousand responses, a significant number of which any reasonable person would have to conclude were “hate mail.”  More importantly  I received promises and threats of additional actions against my interests – clearly in retaliation for my request for information.
39. CPC 502 Violation (Counts 627,014 through 628,614) – On, or about, July 14th, 2006, my Internet Service provider Black Lotus Communications was notified by its provider Staminus Communications that my account was to be turned off by the end of the month.  The SPEWS segment of the Spamhaus/SPEWS conspiracy had blocked all 1,600 of Staminus’s customers email IPs demanding that Staminus not only shut down my service, but that Staminus destroy my websites, and my data, as a condition of removing the email blocks. these “blocks” prevented Staminus’s customers from accessing emails all around the world. These 1,600 acts by Spamhaus/SPEWS are each a violation of CPC 502 section (c)(5).
40. CPC 502 Violation (Counts 628,614 through 628,615) – On, or about, July 14th, 2006, my Internet Service provider Black Lotus Communications was notified by its provider Staminus Communications that my account was to be turned off by the end of the month.  The SPEWS segment of the Spamhaus/SPEWS conspiracy had blocked all 1,600 of Staminus’s customers email IPs demanding that Staminus not only shut down my service, but that Staminus destroy my websites, and my data, as a condition of removing the email blocks. these “blocks” prevented Staminus’s customers from accessing emails all around the world.  Staminus immediately limited my server activity, and shut me down as of July 26th, 2006.  This act by SPEWS is a violation of CPC 502 section (c)(5).
41. Spamhaus/SPEWS – the Ku Klux Klan of the Internet – The most important facet of the Spamhaus/SPEWS conspiracy is their use of anonymity as a tool to create fear in those they intend to dominate.  I believe that there is little, or no, difference between the tactics employed by the Spamhaus/SPEWS “vigilantes,” and the infamous North American Ku Klux Klan.  In both cases, the intent is, and was, to dominate by fear.
42. In the heydays of the Klan an innocent family, who happened to be of color, religion, race, or political belief (something different from the Klan members) would suddenly, in the middle of the night, be confronted in their home with gunfire, a burning cross in their yard, and a group of screaming individuals covered in white-sheets-with-eyeholes.  The family would be dragged out into the yard, the women raped, the men cut up, and their remains hung from a tree – all, supposedly, because the family had, somehow, broken some “unwritten law” this group of vigilantes wanted enforced.
43. It is exactly the same situation with the Spamhaus/SPEWS vigilante conspiracy.  The anonymity provided by “fake” email addresses has enabled the exact same type of behavior by the “vigilantes.” The white-sheets-with-eyeholes, the anonymity, has created a whole new class of criminal behavior on the internet.  This anonymity is the basis for the anti-spammer vigilante operation, attempting to enforce their own “unwritten laws.”
44. The best singular example of the operation of the combined Spamhaus/SPEWS criminal conspiracy is to examine the process that SPEWS uses to harass its victims.  First, no one knows who SPEWS actually is, nor who its members are, nor who they represent.  Everything about it is hidden, including location of its offices, names of its directors and employees, location of its website, and who funds it.  Worse, when SPEWS lists a victim on its blacklist there is no way to contact SPEWS, no place for an attorney to send a certified letter demanding removal.  More, SPEWS will NOT communicate directly with a victim. The only contact is for the victim’s ISP to go on one, or both, of those google news groups (NANAE, or NANABl) and ask to be removed from the blacklist.  The members of those groups use “fake”internet email addresses (white-sheets-with-eyeholes) to communicate with the ISP victim, then using foul language, suggestions of odd sexual activity, and any number of ugly, improper techniques to create fear.
45. In the case, my case, of SPEWS attacking Staminus to get them to turn me off (criminal extortion), Staminus had a real fear of losing all, or most, of their 1,600 customers, because SPEWS was blocking each, and every, of Staminus’s customer IP addresses, and falsely stating to those customers, that Staminus was hosting a“criminal spammer.”  Staminus, a small provider, was in mortal danger of going bankrupt, and losing their entire business to a group who, in essence, is the internet equivalent of the KU Klux Klan.  During the process where Staminus was communicating with SPEWS via the NANABl news list, SPEWS members were demanding that Staminus itself, commit a criminal felony as a condition of having the blacklist removed.  SPEWS was demanding that Staminus destroy my websites, and my information.  I was watching this email exchange, and when this demand was made I immediately demanded the identity of the SPEWS representatives, but was refused admission to the discussion and referred to two other websites described as “the rules.” Both of those websites were owned, and controlled, by Scott Hazen Mueller, the Board Chairman of CAUCE (Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email), and a Systems Administrator at Cal State Northridge.
46. Spamhaus’s method of dealing with complainants is to deter them with a claim that they are based in the UK, and that if a legal action is filed it has to be filed there in the UK, and that the complainant would have to put up all of the money for Spamhaus’s defense into the equivalent of an “escrow account.“
47. Spamhaus and SPEWS, although claiming to be separate, I believe, are the same group of people.  There is good reason to suspect that the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email (CAUCE), or certain of its leadership, may be part of the same criminal conspiracy.
48. The intent of the Spamhaus/SPEWS criminal conspiracy is far more ominous than the Ku Klux Klan ever thought to be, for there is a second, and even more important reason for the “anonymity” – the personal business interests of the “vigilantes.” The intent of the conspiracy is simple – complete control over who gets to say what, to who, on the internet, “  They want complete, and total, control over internet email broadcasting.  Their campaigns, and their actions against their victims, makes that clear.
49. In the Spamhaus/SPEWS conspiracy there are two targets:  (1)  “Free speech” groups – Spamhaus/SPEWS wants to be able to control what information is available to the public, and (2) small internet e-marketing companies that compete with the Spamhaus/SPEWS conspiracy’s secret members’ own business interests.
50. Right from the beginning of my investigation I found that the primary players in the Spamhaus/SPEWS conspiracy all had connections, or ownership, of supposedly “approved” e-marketing operations – and that the victim targets they were shutting down, or forcing to be shut down, represented competition to those business interests.
51. Summary of Criminal Activity – In essence, the Spamhaus/SPEWS conspiracy has committed, in the issues surrounding their attack on me, 628,615 individual violations of State of California Penal Code Section 502 (c) (3), (5) (Computer Crimes) and 518-524 (Extortion), 24,001 individual violations of Missouri “tampering”crimes –  569.090(1) (Tampering) and 569.097 (Tampering with computer equipment), and a smorgasbord of Federal violations including violation(s) of title 18, United States Code Sections  241 (Conspiracy against rights), 371 (Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States), 875(d) (Interstate communications), 1030(Fraud and related activity in relation to a computer), 1343 (fraud by wire, radio, or television), 1951 (Interference with commerce by threats or violence), 1952(Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises).
52. More, the Spamhaus/SPEWS vigilantes have so damaged my reputation that when I complained to a Colorado State University Department head about the activities, on University time and using University facilities, of one of the SPEWS leaders (who calls himself “Some Bastard,” ) I traced, his response was:

Mr. Bolen – I can not take you seriously as your poor reputation, well publicized on the internet, precedes you.

59. “Some Bastard” was the Spamhaus/SPEWS representative who demanded that my ISP destroy my websites and all my data as a condition of having the SPEWS blocklist against all of their 1,600 customers lifted.
60. Worse, my newsletter is just one of thousands of annual victims of the Spamhaus/SPEWS conspiracy in the United States, alone.

 

Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate