Michael S. Cox Is A Spammer, Part 2

Just coming into this page? Read the first part of the story first.

Sadly, some people just don't know when to quit; but then, I shouldn't necessarily be expecting logic from someone who's this clueless. Yeah, he's back again!

May 24, 2006

Mr. Cox somehow found out about the Googlebomb (thanks, all!), decided to get upset, and decided that the proper place to express his unhappiness was in our comments, as seen here:

Dori Smith,

This letter is in regard to the untrue and defamatory content published about me at www.backupbrain.com/rants/Michael_S._Cox.html. I would like to kindly request that the referenced content containing my name and email address, be promptly removed from public viewing, as well as any other untrue and defamatory content that you may have published about me elsewhere.

As a goodwill gesture, I apologize for the rude remark I made in our previous private email correspondence, it wasn't and isn't true, and was made merely out of frustration in response to your repeated false accusations about me. I apologize for making that rude comment, it was unnecessary, as are your retaliatory actions mentioned above.

For the record, I don't send out spam mail, nor have I in the past, any published content stating so is false. Secondly, I do not own the website www.autumngallery.net, any published content stating so is also false. If all of the untrue and defamatory content published by you on your website and elsewhere isn't promptly removed within 14 business days, or if I have not received an affirmative response from you within that time indicating that you will fully comply with these requirements, I shall take further action against you.

Sincerely,
Michael S. Cox
michaelscox@poczta.neostrada.pl

Just for the sake of completeness: the comments for that post were closed, so he attached it to a more recent message written by Tom. To keep matters straight, I moved that comment (neither editing it nor adding anything to it) to its more appropriate location.

May 25, 2006

Being someone who thinks that negotiations should be kept private, I wrote to him personally rather than respond in the comments (y'know, it's not as if he didn't have my email address!):

> This letter is in regard to the untrue and defamatory content
> published about me at www.backupbrain.com/rants/Michael_S._Cox.html.

First, you need to tell me what on there is untrue.

Yes, it's ~~defamatory~~ derogatory [Ed note: my email to him said the former, but I meant to say the latter. I believe that what I said was unkind, but 100% true.], but I asked you twice privately to show me that you aren't a spammer. Your response was to tell me that I was ugly. I found that to be worthy of note on my weblog. If you had a problem with that, you shouldn't have said it. If you weren't the spammer, then you should have proven that, instead.

Truth is an absolute defense.

> I would like to kindly request that the referenced content containing
> my name and email address, be promptly removed from public viewing, as
> well as any other untrue and defamatory content that you may have
> published about me elsewhere.

Hang on a second here...

You posted your name and email address in a public place (i.e., this comment on the weblog) asking me to take down your name and email address? If you didn't want it publicly posted, you shouldn't have publicly posted it.

Particularly given that you've proven that you know my email address and know that I read email sent to that address...

> As a goodwill gesture, I apologize for the rude remark I made in our
> previous private email correspondence, it wasn't and isn't true, and
> was made merely out of frustration in response to your repeated false
> accusations about me. I apologize for making that rude comment, it
> was unnecessary, as are your retaliatory actions mentioned above.

Yes, it was rude. But it wasn't that it was unnecessary, it's that it was irrelevant. If that was the best you could do in response, then well, it pretty much proved my point.

> For the record, I don't send out spam mail, nor have I in the past,
> any published content stating so is false.

And I've asked you for proof of that. This is the third time I've asked for that proof. So far, your response has been insults.

> Secondly, I do not own the website www.autumngallery.net, any published
> content stating so is also false.

And if you notice, it doesn't say you do. I can do a Google search, if you haven't noticed.

<http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=331918>

Someone named Shawn Cox sold that domain earlier this year. I have no idea of the relationship between you and Shawn, but that's just one more piece of the puzzle as to why you'd need a new domain name.

> If all of the untrue and defamatory content published by you on your website
> and elsewhere isn't promptly removed within 14 business days, or if I have not
> received an affirmative response from you within that time indicating that you
> will fully comply with these requirements, I shall take further action against
> you.

Just tell me what on there isn't true.

I have accurately and completely quoted your email without any edits. I have accurately and completely posted my responses to your emails. I've asked you, multiple times now, to do more than just say, "I'm not the Michael S. Cox who creates jewelry with chalcedony, who used to live in Oregon, who currently lives in Poland, and who spammed the world with 'please link to my site' posts." That's rather a lot to buy just on faith, so at this point, you need to prove it.

I'm even willing to remove that page entirely — once you prove this to my satisfaction. So far, all you've done is state "It's NOT ME! Waah waah waaah! NOT ME!" And oddly enough, I'm not willing to just take your say-so on this matter.

I think I've made my request pretty clear Dori.  You've published
and endorsed false statements about me that now exist it seems on 1000+
web pages, assuming of course there aren't others I've yet to uncover.

If you could remove all of the false and defamatory statements about me
within the next 14 business days, that would be awesome.  If some of the
third party websites are unable to remove the defamatory content within
14 business days, please send me a note as to when I can expect their
compliance.

I would also request that you please refrain from posting false and
defamatory statements about Autumn Gallery at Alexa, or any where else. 
I do not own or have any affiliation with this website as I stated
earlier, and you are damaging the interests and name of a third party
not involved in this dispute.

Given the scope and seriousness this has escalated to, I cannot allow
this situation to continue uncorrected, I am also not willing to debate
the status of my good name outside a formal context. I hope you are able
to assist me in this matter within the next 14 business days.  If you
need to get in touch with me, please feel free to send me email at this
address.

Kind Regards,
Michael S. Cox
michaelscox@poczta.neostrada.pl

On 5/25/06 10:03 am, Michael S. Cox at <michaelscox@poczta.neostrada.pl> wrote:

> If you could remove all of the false and defamatory statements about me within
> the next 14 business days, that would be awesome.

I cannot remove any false information until and unless you tell me what is false.

This makes the fourth time I've asked for this. I have to assume that you just prefer to claim that it's all false. But until you back this up, given your past poor behavior, I cannot just take your word for it.

As for Alexa, it says that AutumnGallery.net is a "Collection of contemporary art jewelry by silversmith and jewelry designer Michael S. Cox." I have no connection whatsoever with Alexa; if this information is incorrect, you or the current owner need to deal with them.

However, as you've stated that you have no current or past connection to AutumnGallery.net, I do not know why you should care.

So far as I have been able to tell, all you've done is say that I should trust you about your claim that there are two people:
• Named Michael S. Cox
• Who currently live in Poland
• Who used to live in Oregon
• Who design jewelry
• Who work with chalcedony
But that only one of them, not you, has a past connection to AutumnGallery.net. That's just too unlikely to take on trust, not that you've earned any of my trust.

There's no question that someone sent out spam regarding AutumnGallery.net, and that the person who did that claimed to be named Michael S. Cox.

<http://groups.google.com/group/news.admin.net-abuse.sightings/msg/975b3ab2c83236ff>

That's a given. Someone sent out that spam. You're just claiming that the person who sent that out isn't you, correct?

Every email I have sent you has asked the same thing: show me, in some fashion, any fashion, that that email was not sent out by you or on your behalf. So far, you have either not been able to do that, or have chosen not to do that.

And until you do that, I am utterly lost. There is nothing at all that I can do to help you until/unless you answer the one question that I have ever asked you. It's all up to you, and so far, you've chosen not to respond.

May 26, 2006

From: "Michael S. Cox" <michaelscox@poczta.neostrada.pl>
To: Dori Smith
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 01:58:20 PDT
Subject: Final note

I contacted a lawyer last night Dori for consultation on this dispute,
and am now receiving assistance in resolving these matters.  As you may
be aware, sending spam is illegal in the state of California, where you
reside [i.e. the source of the defamatory remarks].  So, without
question, you are accusing me publicly of committing a crime that has
not been proven in a court of law. There are other serious infractions
involved that show malice, especially being that you have reference
uninvolved third party websites that I do not own, but am currently in
business with [i.e. Anixi Jewelry and Autumn Gallery].

So, your website host has been sent an official cease and desist letter
with the assistance of an attorney.  You have 48 hours to contact me by
email with a written statement indicating your full willingness to
comply with my previous requests, or I will be filing a libel suit
against you, and any other parties involved in publishing these false
and defamatory statements about me being a spammer.  To make myself
clear, the statements "michael s. cox is a spammer" referencing me by
name and email address, should be removed from public view within 12
business days per my initial cease and desist request.

This is my final correspondence with you without seeking legal
injunction.  Unless you are willing to email me your written compliance
within 48 hours to my earlier requests, please cease further
communications, and my attorney will contact you after 12 business days
from today.

Thank you for your cooperation,
Michael S. Cox
michaelscox@poczta.neostrada.pl

So, that's where things stand now, and why you may have a received a cease and desist letter. My apologies for bringing this upon you. So far, I've heard from one person who received one directly from him, although I don't know of anyone who's received one from a lawyer. I'll believe that he's actually got a lawyer if/when I get that letter in June.

Personally, I'm taking him up on his request (last graf) to cease further communications with him.

I do plan to contact pair.com, my hosting company, on Tuesday (May 30) to give them a heads up and find out their policies. Here's the relevant bit from their service contract, which states that I cannot:

Post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, offensive, indecent, pornographic, profane, or otherwise objectionable information of any kind, including without limitation any transmissions constituting or encouraging conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate any local, state, federal or international law, including without limitation the U.S. export control laws and regulations, and laws protecting intellectual property including copyright, trademark, trade secret, misappropriation and anti-dilution laws;

I don't see that what I've written qualifies under this, as he (although I requested it multiple times) has never come up with a reason as to why he is not responsible for the spam that was sent out under his name. I have to come to the conclusion that he did it himself, which means that it's not libel. My guess is that if pair.com has to make a choice between someone who's been a solid customer since 1997 or a spammer, I'll win.

Just for giggles, try and figure out how California law applies in this case (which is what he says his lawyer will claim). I'm not a lawyer, but here's the geography:
• At the time he sent the spam, he lived in Oregon
• He currently lives in Poland
• I got his first batch of email, and wrote that original post, all while at a conference in Tempe, AZ
• I got his second batch of email, and wrote this post, all while at a conference in Wellington, NZ
• My server is in Pittsburgh, PA

Hell, I'm not even sure that US law necessarily applies to all of this. While my server is there, neither he nor I are in America right now.

For the sake of completeness, and in closing, here's a link to EFF's Bloggers' FAQ on online defamation law, which states:

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim.

Want to comment? You can do that here.

Want more? You can read part three.