In a ruling by Judge Douglas Smith of the Shoreline Division of King County District Court, a a non-existent law was cited as the reason for ruling against Seattle-area anti-spam activist Bruce Miller.

Miller was the first person in the country to get money from a spammer in 1998, using Washington State's commercial email law, RCW 19.190, which prohibits misleading subject lines, fraudulent from addresses, or the use of third-party domain names without permission in commercial email.

The lawsuit, #Y2-392, was brought against Washington Mutual, Incorporated, a bank doing business in Shoreline, a city just north of Seattle. Coincidentally, the bank's President, Kerry Killinger is a Highlands resident, an exclusive neighborhood of Shoreline. [A]

The commercial email promoted mortgage loans, a business activity of Washington Mutual. Miller testified that he received the mortgage spam while in the City of Shoreline. "The source of the email was completely obscured," said Miller. "To find out who was behind the email, I went to the web page promoted in the email. There was no information on the web page about who was behind the mortgage spam. To find out who was behind the spam, I created a unique email address and then used that address in the information request form on the web page. The next day I got a response from Washington Mutual to this unique email address."

Miller alleged that Washington Mutual was either behind or a supporter of the commercial email that violated Washington's commercial email law.

At trial on August 6, 2002, the judge raised a question of law regarding RCW 19.190, but could not find a law book, Miller said. Rather than issue a decision at the time of trial, Judge Smith said he would issue a written decision.

Judge Smith's written decision dismissed the case, claiming that Miller had not filed in the correct small claims court division. According to Miller, the defendant never raised this objection. The court's ruling said the proper venue for jurisdiction "should be Seattle Division".

In response to the Judge's decision, Miller filed a Motion for Reconsideration, a procedure to ask the judge to reconsider his ruling based on an error of law or fact. In that request, Miller pointed out that
  1) the written testimony established that Shoreline was the correct division because the disputed email was received while Miller was in the City of Shoreline;
  2) King County District Court's own informational Web page says a corporation can be sued in the division where the corporation does business [B];
  3) Washington Mutual has an office in Shoreline at 18200 Midvale Ave N, Shoreline, WA 98133.

Judge Smith denied the Motion for Reconsideration. The document sent to Miller by the Court informing him of the decision cited RCW (Revised Code of Washington) 3.6.020(2) as Judge Smith's grounds for denying the motion. "RCW 3.6.020(2) does not exist," said Miller. "Additionally, there is no chapter 6 in RCW Title 3." [C]

Judge Smith's term expires January 1st, 2003. He is up for re-election on November 5, 2002. He is running unopposed.

[A] Link to search form on King County Records web site. Use "Killinger, Kerry" for lastname, firstname. See in particular Declaration filed on 8/6/01.

[B] http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdc/scprep.htm said on August 12, 2002: "You may file your small claim action in the district court division where the corporation does business, the division in which the corporate office is located, or the division where the Registered Agent is located." Emphasis added. In case KCDC has changed the wording at its site, click here for the page with this wording.

[C] Document from the Court in Response to the Motion for Reconsideration said: "Judge Smith reviewed plaintiff motion for reconsideration. The motion for reconsideration is denied by Judge Smith. Plaintiff had a choice to file where defendant resides or where transaction took place and choose [sic] neither. (RCW 3.6.020(2). [sic on the missing paren]"

Comment: According to the King County Disctrict Court web page for small claims filing, the plaintiff also has the choice of filing in the division where the corporation does business.

Comment: There is no RCW 3.6. See http://www.leg.wa.gov/rcw/index.cfm?fuseaction=title&title=3.

Original spam PDF format
Web page promoted in the spam, Page 1 PDF format PDF format
Web page promoted in the spam, Page 2 PDF format PDF format
Response from Washington Mutual, Inc. PDF format
Initial written decision dismissing case GIF format
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration PDF format
Denial of Motion of Reconsideration GIF format. Yellow highlight added by the court.